STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear Helen,

> In this case, Would not it be better to use some range (or
> uncertainty) for this constant "k" based on transition (gray) range
> even if we set this by eye?

I want to withdraw my this statement.
It is not required.


Regards
Nihar



On 2023-03-22 22:07, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear Helen,
>
> After going through your explanation now I understand a bit more and
> Thank you for this.
>
> when we show Slide5 right plot which is CMS MOD plot with x-axis in
> log scale of dR.
> But in our STAR data  we use x-axis with log10(dR).
> If we could use the same way of plotting X-axis, at least visually, it
> would be easy to compare what we show in slide5 to motivate about
> different regions with our STAR results.
>
> Besides,I also raised this at pwg meeting that all these transition
> regions we are setting by eye.
> For example:
> Slide-15 30-50 GeV plot:
> if I use  10−0.9 ∗ (30𝐺𝑒𝑉/𝑐) ~ 3.7 (here -0.9 upper bound of transition 
> range).
> then that number is quit different from 2.7 .
>
> In this case, Would not it be better to use some range (or
> uncertainty) for this constant "k" based on transition (gray) range
> even if we set this by eye?
>
> Certainly we can explore after HP2023 on it in detail.
>
>
> > > Only low jet pT 15-20 GeV does match with the story like slide#5
> > > right plot.
> > > Why?
> >
> > I don’t know what you are asking here, can you try again?
>
> What I wanted to say here is that it looks like only low pT 15-20 GeV
> shows the similar trend as in Slide#5. Higher jet pT 30-50 GeV the
> trend is quit different at least to eye.
> Although I understand the transition region moves ~ 1/pTjet,
> Why not at high pT (30-50 GeV) the plateau and transition regions more
> distinct than low jet pT (15-20)?
> Or do they look the same?
>
>
> thank you
> Nihar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2023-03-22 20:00, Helen Caines via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > Hi Nihar,
> >
> >   Let me comment on your interpretation questions. Andrew will take
> > care for the presentation/style points. He is also rehearsing his talk
> > here at Yale today, so he will post a new version later today/tomorrow
> > where some of the fine wording may be tweaked,
> >
> >  But the data points have been consistent for a while now, its just a
> > questions of how to present on log or pin scales.
> >
> > > 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).
> >
> > It is  non-linear in d(Delta(R)) normalization, which it has to be
> > since it was close to flat in  d Log((Delta(R))). This is not
> > unexpected and the different normalizations, which are just
> > normalizations and not a change in the calculation of the correlation
> > calculated, emphasize different points of interest in the correlation
> > function. There is the transition point that is expected to be at
> > Transition ~ ( k *  Lambda_QCD ) / Jet_pt  ; where k is a constant.
> > This is what Andrew sees and wants to emphasize in his talk.
> >
> > The “plateau” region is not quite flat and the ratio of the slopes
> > of different N-point correlations (Andrew has N=2) are related to
> > alpha_s. Andrew does not focus on this as at the jet pT relevant to
> > RHIC the plateau range in small.
> >
> > > Only low jet pT 15-20 GeV does match with the story like slide#5
> > > right plot.
> > > Why?
> >
> > I don’t know what you are asking here, can you try again?
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Not sure what doesn’t make sense. The theorists told us that
> > "Transition point” / pT = constant =  k * lambda_QCD . As best as we
> > can currently read off the transition region from the RHIC data (Yi
> > has a good point about how to make this more rigorous after HP) and
> > the LHC MOD data their prediction is correct. That’s very nice given
> > the more than order of magnitude difference in jet energy measured.
> >
> > > "Same Order of magnitude implies universality between collision
> > > energies!"
> > > What universality we are pointing to?
> >
> > The universality of the turning point, which according to theory is
> > proportional to Lambda_QCD. The factor k they are interested in as it
> > related to some approximations they can/can’t make but that’s a
> > detail for further discussion with them.
> >
> > > Why not that universality holds for RHIC higher jet pT?
> >
> > It does, I do not understand why you think it doesn’t. The
> > transition point” / pT = constant for all Andrew’s measurements
> > and approximately the same as the LHC data.
> >
> > > This interpretation does not sound coherent.
> >
> > It is fully consistent  there is really nice agreement between his
> > data and the theory calculation performed at his jet energies by Kyle
> > before seeing the data. This is all great. PYTHIA also shows good
> > agreement, which is also nice to see.
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > > Slide:20
> > > Please provide paper "Kyle Lee, MIT " reference here
> >
> > This is a private communication. Andrew can you please label it as
> > such, even in the plots so the credit to Kyle doesn’t get lost if
> > people take your figures in the future
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > > 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]) [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
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1] http://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