STAR HardProbes PWG

[Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>]

Hello All,

Thank you very much for the comments! I am working on implementing them now and will update today or tomorrow. 

>>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?

Because of the renormalization to match the theory calculations, the plateau has been shifted into a constant downward slope.  This will just change how I am defining how these regions look at the beginning of the talk and I will have to mention it in contrast to the CMS result, which I believe was normalized the same way as my previous plots, but the same regions are present in the same ranges.

Best,

Andrew

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:37 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 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