STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw>]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks a lot for the nice slides and sorry for the late reply. 

I have some minor comments and suggestions on your nice slides for your consideration.

  p3: charged final state particles --> final state charged particles (read better? Up to you)

  p5: I would specify what is low dR and what is high dR. 

  p6: Remove the vertical dashed lines in this slide (much clearer what it means in p7). 

  p11: Try to put p_T > 0.2 GeV/c in one line. Maybe put "Fraction of Correlations in Sample" in vertical? 

  p15, 16: the formula is the order of pT^jet_low * dR_turnover, the middle one should use the same order "(15 GeV/c) * `10^-0,75 

  * I probably missed some discussion, but I remember last time you mentioned that different regions are determined by "eye"? It probably can be determined by calculating the slopes with sliding windows (just for your consideration). 

 p19: I would plot Pythia with histograms rather than data points, but it is up to you. 

Cheers,

Yi 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Professor
Department of Physics / 

Director of Science Education Center

National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, 701 Taiwan
E-Mail: yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw
Tel: +886-6-2757575 ext.65237
Fax: +886-6-2747995
Group Web: http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/~yiyang
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 2:14 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Andrew,

Please find my comments on your recent updated slides.

Urgent: Please provide me this plot saved in root file for my highlight
presentations.
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/EEC_R0p6_15to20GeV.pdf

General comment:
I don't understand the behavior of EEC vs dR with the new normalization
scheme.
Because, at RHIC energy it shows q/g phase has also non-linear trend
that looks like 1/R^2 trend at high dR with a peak at gray region (see
Slide18 for example).
Only low jet pT 15-20 GeV does match with the story like slide#5 right
plot.
Why?


Slide#5
"while behavior at high ∆𝑅 is influenced by fragmentation physics" -> do
you mean "fragmentation physics" is quark/gluon phase?  "Fragmentation"
generally represents "fragmentation to hadron" so in that context, is
not that better to rephrase
"while behavior at high ∆𝑅 is influenced by parton shower" or something
similar.

Slide#11:
IN this slide, I think, is not that "ΔR" different from your EEC
formula?
If yes, define this here.


Slide16:

This slide's comparison with CMS open data does not make sense to me.
On the one hand we say (in slide15) "transition region moves as 1/pTjet"
And then in this slide16 we are comparing RHIC 15-20 Gev/c jet pT with
LHC 500,550 GeV jet pT, and showing values are 2.7 and 2.5 GeV/c,
respectively; same order of magnitude?
"Same Order of magnitude implies universality between collision
energies!"
What universality we are pointing to?
Why not that universality holds for RHIC higher jet pT?
This interpretation does not sound coherent.

Slide:20
Please provide paper "Kyle Lee, MIT " reference here


Cheers
Nihar

On 2023-03-22 14:02, Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hello Nihar,
>
> Thank you for the nice comments, I have implemented them.
>
> I have also received the theoretical predictions from Kyle Lee at MIT,
> which was normalized differently than my analysis:  He normalized both
> the overall integral and x-axis scaling to Delta(R) rather than
> log_10(DeltaR).  In order to make this comparable, I divided each of
> my bins by their equivalent length in DeltaR: changing my distribution
> from d(...)/d(Log_10(DeltaR)) to d(...)/d(DeltaR) and integrated them
> out to one in that space (Formula Updated on slide 5).  Nothing
> changed about the analysis except for a scaling at the very end, so
> this is still the same data.  Now that they are normalized the same
> way, I have included the comparisons with Kyle's theory calculations,
> normalizing his to the same area as mine within the region that they
> are plotted.
>
> I have updated my plots and uploaded them to drupal here: Preliminary
> Plots for Energy-Energy Correlator Measurement in p+p Run12 | The STAR
> experiment (bnl.gov) [1]
>
> Slide 5->6:  The lines are placed by eye, In this talk I have defined
> the DeltaR_Turnover as the leftmost edge of the bin which breaks the
> linear scaling behavior seen in the hadronization region.  My previous
> slides were inconsistent about this, so I have corrected them.
> Because this region has some width there are other ways to calculate
> this, but I show that if one is consistent in a definition, the
> calculation will yield a value in the same order of magnitude for a
> given jet pT.  The 3.6GeV isn't a set value, just showing that they
> are all of similar scale: so I have changed this to "2 to 3GeV" to
> make it less of a strong statement than asserting a value.  This value
> is smaller because I changed the calculation from using average pT to
> the lower pT bound, which the scheme that the theoretical calculations
> I received followed.
>
> Slide 9->11: I rephrased the sentence to say what they mean, leaving
> the abbreviations out, let me know if this works.
>
> Slide 10->12:  I rephrased it to "do not need to correct in addition
> to pT_Jet"
>
> Slide 17->18: The geometric cutoff is due to it becoming more
> difficult to fit two particles into the cone once the deltaR reaches
> the jet radius, so an increased jet R allows for the measurement to
> push into larger deltaR, where we see the quark/gluon region continue.
>
> Best,
> Andrew
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 3:31 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Andrew,
>>
>> Please find my comments on your nice presentation below.
>> ___________
>> General comment/suggestion to all HP2023 and DIS2023 presenters:
>> 1. Please make a Drupal page for all your preliminary plots and
>> provide
>> us the link.
>> If you have already done that, please send us the link.
>>
>> 2. While preparing your analysis plots for "STAR preliminary"
>> request,
>> please follow the guidance 1-7:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/common/Preliminary-figures
>> It saves our time.
>> _________
>>
>> SLide:-2
>> t_f : mention "formation time"
>>
>> SLide-5:
>> In plot:
>> Legend shows all blue, red, green markers are 15-20 GeV/c jet pT. I
>> think that is not the case. Please correct it. (Slide6)
>> As this is a PYTHIA study, I would strongly suggest to use open
>> marker
>> here.
>> Because you have used the same marker style while plotting the data.
>>
>> Otherwise it may confuse the audience.
>>
>> Each dashed line:
>> Have you used the _expression_ "Lambda_QCD/jet Pt" to find the value
>> of
>> Delta_R in the left plot?
>> If not, can you calculate what is the value if you use "ave jet pT"
>> of
>> these three cases?
>>
>> Slide6:
>> "< 𝑝𝑇 𝐽𝑒𝑡 >*∆𝑅𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 ~
>> 3.6 GeV" Not clear to me what this "3.6 GeV"
>> implies here?
>> Where do you get "DeltaR_turnover"? Have you calculated as I
>> mentioned
>> above? Or just by eye?
>>
>> SLide7:
>> "Experimental Measurment at STAR" -> "STAR detector" (all
>> measurements
>> are experimental) (same on slide8)
>> You could show other colorful STAR detector pic.
>> "Must correct for inefficiencies …" ->"         Must correct for
>> detector
>> effects…"
>>
>> Slide9
>> Mention what is "DeltaR_jet" and "DeltaR_track"?
>> Both left and right slide, X, Y axis labels are too small. Please
>> increase the size.
>> Put Unit on both the axises.
>>
>> Slide10
>> Both left and right slide, X, Y axis labels are too small. Please
>> increase the size.
>> Put Unit and title on both the axises.
>>
>> "..do not need to correct additionally to 𝒑𝑻𝑱𝒆𝒕 " ->
>> I this we don't
>> need correction for EEC but "pTjet range" needs to be corrected. Is
>> not
>> that?
>>
>> Slide17:
>> "quark/gluon region continues longer before geometric cutoff" -> do
>> you
>> understand why it is so?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Nihar
>>
>> On 2023-03-17 04:34, Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Hello Barbara,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for the nice comments.  I have implemented all
>> of
>>> them and uploaded my new version, here are some notes on some of
>> the
>>> changes
>>> -s6 Added a note that I calculate average Jet pT from PYTHIA
>> spectra
>>> -s10 For the second part being more technical, i have now moved my
>>> GEANT statistical uncertainty explanation to a previous slide
>> where I
>>> can talk about it in more detail, and changed some of the wording
>>>
>>> On Slide 16 I have included a comparison with the previous CMS
>> result,
>>> showing that the <pT jet>*Rturnover produces something in the same
>>> order of magnitude, showing that this result is consistent.  I
>> believe
>>> this is significant, with how quickly the log axis moves and the
>>> ambiguity in declaring the start of the turnover region (If I say
>> the
>>> previous bin on my plot is the start of the transition region I
>> get
>>> 2.7GeV), please let me know how you think I should present this
>> point.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you have any other suggestions.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 8:49 AM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l
>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> please find below my comments to your nice slides.
>>>>
>>>> - s2: clustered -> Clustered (to be consistent with other bullet
>>>> points)
>>>> - s3: add full reference to the right plot (same s4)
>>>> - s5,6: please improve the quality of the number values in the
>> Jet
>>>> pT legend
>>>> - s5: "Curve normalized to integrate to" - you can make the font
>> of
>>>> this bullet point a bit smaller, as it's a note
>>>> - s6: the arrows are displaced to the right from the dashed lines
>>>> - s6: when you calculate the turnover point, how do you get the
>>>> average jet pT for each range ? Do you use the PYTHIA spectra ?
>>>> - s6: you have twice "Average" in the equation, <p_T^Jet> shall
>> be
>>>> enough.
>>>> - s6: higher Jet transverse -> higher jet transverse
>>>> - s7: I would suggest putting here a scheme of the STAR, with the
>>>> most important detectors marked.
>>>> - s7: I would remove this "triggers on and", you mention trigger
>> at
>>>> the end of the sentence.
>>>> - s8: Add on the plots information about simulations, system,
>>>> energy. There's a line on the right side of the left plot.
>>>> - s8: right plot - add y-axis title, increase size of data points
>>>> and use different markers.
>>>> - s8: for Jet Pt -> x for Jet p_T
>>>> - s10: y-axis - add [%], improve quality of the legend, make the
>>>> lines wider and different styles, and I would decrease the y-axis
>>>> max so that all the contributions are visible.  Add the "STAR
>>>> preliminary" label. I would suggest also using the same
>> description
>>>> of the sys. unc. in the legend as you have on the previous slide.
>>>> - s10: I would suggest making bullet points to be consistent with
>>>> the style of other slides, and unify the font. Also, the second
>> part
>>>> of the text on this slide sounds too technical, could you please
>>>> improve it and make a short point(s).
>>>> - s11: make the data point markers and font larger (e.g. you can
>>>> move the "STAR Preliminary" label up to have more space of the
>>>> text). The two plots look displayed relatively to each other.
>> Same
>>>> for other result plots.
>>>> - s11: "Distribution moves " - this might not be clear. Maybe:
>>>> average of the distribution moves to lower angles ...
>>>> - s12: I would remove "Doing some estimations ...", remind
>> instead
>>>> of the equation you show earlier
>>>> - s13, 14: make the style of the plots consistent with the
>> previous
>>>> plots, increase the font size, etc. Also, you can merge from down
>>>> the lower ratio plots with the upper plots.
>>>> - s15: add a conclusion bullet
>>>> - s16: Mark here again to which region each colored band
>> corresponds
>>>> to - as on slide 12.
>>>> - s16: Increase the font size of "Increasing R increases ... "
>>>> - s17: Increase the legend font size, and you don't need
>> "Corrected
>>>> Data:"
>>>> - s17: Make the conclusion sentence standing out more, and remind
>>>> what is the Effect - transition region moves to smaller opening
>>>> angles with increasing jet pT
>>>> - s17:  Higher Jet Radius ->  higher jet radius
>>>> - Please consistently make all the slides' titles bold (or not
>> bold)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Barbara
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 2:34 AM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Tamis (andrew.tamis AT yale.edu) has submitted a material
>> for
>>>>> a review,
>>>>> please have a look:
>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/62953
>>>>>
>>>>> Deadline: 2023-03-26
>>>>> ---
>>>>> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
>>>>> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/atamis/Preliminary-Plots-Energy-Energy-Correlator-Measurement-pp-Run12-1
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l