STAR HardProbes PWG

["Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for addressing my comments. As for the EEC normalization point, Andrew did verify with Ian Moult that the normalization is different (by a multiplicative factor of DeltaR). It is also subtly in the paper (thanks to Andrew for pointing this out) in the sentence “Below this, we observe a nearly perfect R_L d\sigma/dR_L \propto R_L^2 scaling, corresponding to uniformly distributed hadrons.” Andrew is basically plotting the y=d\sigma/dR_L and they plot R_L * y. He also verified that if he plotted the result with the DeltaR scaling, he got a shape much closer to theirs than in the preliminaries.

With this point addressed, I sign off.

Enjoy the conference!

-Isaac

On Jun 12, 2023, at 1:36 PM, David Stewart <0ds.johnny AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Isaac,

Thanks much for the close reading. I have addressed your comments with the exception of adding a label for the y-axis scaling of the open access CMS data EEC plot. I haven't seen a clear statement in the reference, and assume that they are just normalizing per point without scaling for bin width. Please fine my responses to your comments in-line below. Updates are posted at this new pdf at the same page here.

Also contained in the draft are two residual responses to Nihar's comments -- a replaced figure on slide 9 and comments in last email.

Best,

Dave 

On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 12:34 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Dave,

The talk is in good shape already. Below are some comments from me.

Thanks,

Isaac

4. Remove "\eta as indicated"

done 

5.

I don't really understand what the phrase "Field theory predicts observable..." means. Maybe instead: "An observable which allows for direct comparison of field-theoretic calculations to data is..."? Or maybe I'm not understanding what you were trying to say here.

Maybe I should stick with the STAR overview talks pithier "field theory faces reality" that we presented in the HP summary... 
I've gone with the softer "Directly testable field theory prediction"

"Observe/measure \Lambda_QCD" seems a bit strong since we only measure something proportional to Lambda_QCD (~ 2 - 3 GeV, where Lambda_QCD is O(100 MeV)). Maybe instead just "Observe transition from parton to hadron behavior"?

Hmm, ok. I have revised. I'm afraid of underselling the point. The motivation that the theory does predict a directly measurable obersvable is really cool, even is there is a proportionality constant requiring measurements at multiple jet pT before we have Lambda_QCD, and even if we have weasel words about quark gluon content making a difference.

"correlates" -> "corresponds to" (since the correlations in data are always between hadrons).

done 

Depending on how you practice the talk, this may be more clear, but currently you write "turnover" before you've discussed the distribution shape.

edited 

6.

"CMS Data" -> "CMS Open Data" 

done 

The normalization on the y-axis is different in the CMS open data than the STAR measurement, so this should be pointed out either in text or verbally to explain partly why the scaling looks different in the hadron and parton regions between the STAR and CMS data.

looking at their paper and don't see it -- maybe need to see their code. However, it is obviously different. I suspect that "normalized" per number of points without the bin width. Do you know? 

"universal between RHIC and LHC"

done 

7.

If Grant has time before the talk, there's a lot of white space on this plot which could be reduced to make it a bit easier to see the differences between the panels. It may also be worthwhile drawing lines at the means or writing them, so it's clear it does change between panels, to help illustrate your first bullet point. You could do something like an arrow to the right and an arrow pointing up in red to denote the shift in the mean and the increase in the quark-initiator fraction.

edited

Also additional legend entries to indicate the overall distribution (black) and 'other' distribution (magenta) should be added, especially since there's space. 

done 

You might also consider adding a plot of the LO expectation of the quark jet fraction at RHIC to support the MC generator observation (e.g. https://inspirehep.net/literature/1341090 Fig. 1.38)?

8.

This is actually the Perugia 2012 "STAR tune" right?

yes, edited 

"more up quark dominated"?

ok, changed

9.

I understand you're going for a particular flow, but I don't think it's appropriate for the title of this slide to be "Measure initiating quark/gluon fractions?" Yes the data look closer to Pythia8's quark jets, but there is also an overall discrepancy which may be due to something else entirely. It may be the case that we could follow up with a STAR "jet" tune, but that is separate from the claim that we are measuring quark/gluon fractions (except in a highly model dependent way).

edited

10.

" > z_cut (\DeltaR_12/R_jet)^\beta; nominal at STAR: z_cut = 0.1, \beta = 0"

To me, "this presentation: ..." makes it seem like this is the first time the results have been shown. Maybe just "(applied for the first time at RHIC)" or something like that.

 done

11.

The title here is basically the same as the first bullet. I would recommend something like "Correlation between soft and hard radiation". Up to your taste.

You say "mass difference...ratio removed by grooming" but define just the mass difference afterward.

done 

14. You have some room on this slide to make the figures bigger.

done 

15. (3) is repeated.

fixed 

18. The title is a bit cut off by the figure.

fixed 

20. The image here doesn't seem to really describe the concept of subleading jet suppression due to quenching. If anything, it looks slightly tilted from the 180 degree line which makes it seem more like an A_phi image. Could you draw your own and make the subleading jet smaller, and with the origin (star) slightly biased away from the center? These images exist already for the QGP case, but you could alternatively just take one of those and add a big "?" next to it since you're testing for quenching.

ok, edited

22.

"LHC"

fixed 

Careful here: "pruning" is technically a different thing than "grooming". [See e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0007.pdf Fig. 13, where pruning is in green and grooming is in red]

ah ok, thanks. Fixed here and also on slide 11 

 

On Jun 9, 2023, at 2:01 PM, David Stewart via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Nihar,

Thanks for your careful reading and feedback. I have updated my slides to version 1 in the system at this page (which points to this pdf). Please see my comments and edits responding to your comments in-line below,

Best regards,

Dave

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:26 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Dave,

Please find my comments on your nice presentation slides.


SLide-3:
_ '&' -> 'and' all places

done 

_"Experimentally observe initial parton distribution: " -> Sounds 
awkward, if you refer to Slide 7and 8, then I would prefer "Measure 
quark and gluon fraction initiated jet"

edited

_Measure parton shower increasingly differentially  -> Not clear what do 
you want to say?

edited 

SLide-4:
_Experimental data: particles in STAR -> "STAR detector" [as you have 
not discussed any data and run except detector]

? not sure why, but done 

_TPC particles  -> Charged particles from TPC
_TPC + BEMC particles -> Charged particle from TPC and neutral particles 
from BEMC

Not changed for now; I think this is more words without any extra meaning because the type of particles are already stated in TPC and BEMC bullets above.

SLide-5:
_Field theory predicts observable -> Give reference. arXiv:2205.03414 , 
2209.11236
_"Observe/measure Λ_QCD" -> Do you mean we can measure 
"Λ_QCD" using EEC? Make it clear.
_ @ -> "At" or "For"

done 

SLide-6:
_ Title: First corrected EEC measurement -> I recall these are not  

"corrected". Can you please confirm it?

done 

_ GeV/c vs GeV/ italic{c} -> make it consistent at all places

done 

SLide-8:
_Can you please remind me where do you get this preliminary plot?

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/gmcnam/Preliminary-Request-Jet-Charge-DNP-2022 

_(data is moving to the right -> more quark dominated) ->it is not 
apparent. Can you point to me this preliminary results or previous 
presentation slides?

same link as above -- but you can see it i

Slide-9:
_ I like right side jet cartoon. But it is quite unusual to have that 
many particles in pp jet even if it is a cartoon. Can you please make 
that with less number of arrows.

I'll put it on my list to remake a new more pp-like 

_ Make the equation size bigger so that visible to audience

done 

_hot nuclear effects -> hot-dense QCD matter effect

 done

_"Same results from measurement of jet girth" -> Better to be silent as 
you are not showing any results here. Opt to drop it.

I have the figure in the backup, it was just cut for time. Is there a graceful way to advertise that this is also being measured?

Slide-13:
jets from -> jet yield from

done 

SLide-14 and 13:
Introduce "EA"

done on slide 13 

Slide15
_ RAA -> R_AA

done 

_ At RHIC kinematics -> Or "At STAR kinematics"

 done

_ (3) jet in BBC ->  Do you mean "activity in BBC"? Not sure what is 
"jet in BBC"?

done 

_ No "auto-correlation" from jets in EA acceptance -> Can you please 
explain what do you mean here "auto-correlation"?

edited 

Slide-16:
_ mid-pT and lower-pT ->  mid-p_{T}^{reco} and lower-p_{T}^{reco} _" 
Anti-correlation: EA distribution in high-𝑝T jet events significantly 
softer than EA distribution in mid-𝑝T and lower-𝑝T jet events" -> here 
this sentence is confusing. It is because of  "high-𝑝T jet events"  and 
"mid-𝑝T and lower-𝑝T jet events"; Can you please clarify it?

 revised

_And what is this <BBCE sum > for each pT^reco bins? Not clear.

label is edited 

_In side plot, 10< p_{Tiled}^{reco} < 15 -> 10< p_{Tiled}^{reco} < 15 
GeV/c; same for other two

done 

SLide-17:
_"Qualitatively different from quenching in QGP in A+A collisions" -> 
Can you please expound what is the qualitative difference here between 
A+A and p+A?

really good catch -- I have reorganized the bullets to indicate the logic 

Slide-20:
_ "Correlation results not from final state effects, but rather “new” 
physics present in initial configuration of the ions, or the initial 
stages of the collision" -> Not clear where do you get this conclusion? 
Can you please point to me which results you refer here?

 wording is edited

I suggest to improve your summary slides 20-21. In the current form, it 
is a bit unorganized way summarizing your beautiful results and number 
of topics you covered in this presentation. Can you please give a try to 
improve it so that audience can get takeaway message ?

 are much edited

Cheers
Nihar


On 2023-06-07 01:17, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> 
> David Stewart (david.j.stewart AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a
> review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/63898
> 
> Deadline: 2023-06-19
> ---
> 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

-- 

David Stewart

Postdoctoral Fellow | Department of Physics, Wayne State University

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

-- 

David Stewart

Postdoctoral Fellow | Department of Physics, Wayne State University