STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Dear Isaac,

Thanks a lot! I think it is very useful for us as a future guideline. :-) 

Cheers,

Yi

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 2:53 AM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Since my name was mentioned, I will chime in that I was always taught not to end sentence fragments with periods, which would apply to bulleted lists as well unless the bullet either completes a sentence from a higher level bullet or is a self-contained complete sentence. I’m not a grammar expert, so take this comment with a grain of salt, but I believe Yi is technically correct. See here and here for some resources on this if you’re interested. So I would say in order not to distract the grammar sticklers in the audience, it could be better to remove all of the periods, except in the case where it makes something unclear. E.g. if you have multiple sentence fragments in the same bullet as in s. 6, bullet 1, you obviously need to separate them somehow for readability — okay, it could be a semicolon, but at this point we’re really getting into the weeds :). 

-Isaac

On Jun 16, 2023, at 2:01 PM, Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Yi, 

thanks for the comments.

I've updated the slides, and please see my answers below.

Cheers,

Barbara

  - General: probably you can remove "period" for some items which are not a complete sentence? Issac should correct me... 

I put it consistently at the end, I probably don't have enough feeling to judge where it's better to remove them ;) 

I can remove them everywhere, if you think it's better.

 

  - p2: I think this page only contains the motivation for studying quarkonia in A+A collisions, should we add some motivation for studying quarkonia in p+p since p4 and p5 are nothing to do with QGP? 

Good point. I added a quick motivation here, and I also try to give motivation on the individual slides. 

 

  - p3: Mid-rapidity detectors --> Mid-rapidity sub-detectors   (extremely minor) 

Done. 

 

  - p4: It might be good to mention that this analysis is using charged jets only. 

Done, also on p5.

 

  - p6: Add R_AA formula as well? Or generalize the R_pA formula... 

Done - generalized to AA

 

  - p11: Increasing in more ... --> increasing suppression 

Done

 

  - p12: I think the Upsilon in isobar is the new results (or relatively new to the audience), would it be good to show the mass distribution to demonstrate how we reconstruct Upsilon in isobar data?  

 

Done 

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 6:55 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Barbara,

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

I only have some minor comments for your consideration. 

  - General: probably you can remove "period" for some items which are not a complete sentence? Issac should correct me... 

  - p2: I think this page only contains the motivation for studying quarkonia in A+A collisions, should we add some motivation for studying quarkonia in p+p since p4 and p5 are nothing to do with QGP? 

  - p3: Mid-rapidity detectors --> Mid-rapidity sub-detectors   (extremely minor) 

  - p4: It might be good to mention that this analysis is using charged jets only. 

  - p6: Add R_AA formula as well? Or generalize the R_pA formula... 

  - p11: Increasing in more ... --> increasing suppression 

  - p12: I think the Upsilon in isobar is the new results (or relatively new to the audience), would it be good to show the mass distribution to demonstrate how we reconstruct Upsilon in isobar data?  

 

Cheers,

Yi 

 

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 3:30 AM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Isaac,

Thanks for sign off.

Sorry for the confusion regarding the slide number, indeed I was commenting on slide 6. 

Now it's more clear :) 

Within the uncertainties, it's hard to draw strong conclusions. I think claiming HNM effects here would be too strong, for example other nPDF parametrization might give a bit different R_pAu and the uncertainties on them are not small. 

The conclusion about the indication about the CNM is from data, R_pAu = 0.82 ± 0.10 (stat.) ± 0.08 (syst.) ± 0.10 (global)

Cheers,

Barbara

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 6:47 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for addressing my questions and comments. Just one quick thing: it seems from your answer like you thought my comment about s. 7 was actually about s. 6. [For the record, I agree with the conclusion(s) you made on s. 6 and your explanation in the email.] But is it a sensible comment when applied to s. 7 instead?

Aside from this small point, I think the talk looks great and I sign off.

Best,

Isaac

On Jun 12, 2023, at 5:08 AM, Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Isaac,

thanks for the comments. I've uploaded a new version incorporating your and Nihar's suggestions.

And please find below my answers. 

Cheers, 

Barbara

 

2.
        "in the QGP" or "in the QCD medium"

Indeed, QCD medium is better. 

 

        Should the "sequential quarkonium suppression" bullet be a subbullet of HNM effects, or no?

Yes, it's part of the HNM,  a separate bullet is just to indicate an additional effect that we expect within the static dissociation picture.

 

3.      Could you either add to this image the TOF label, or use one which has it labeled, since you mention it on the right?

Done.

 

4.
        The singlet should produce a higher jet multiplicity, right? So could you color code or in some way distinguish the "color singlet" and "color octet" in the bullet at the top of the slide, then in the diagram on the bottom right use the octet color scheme for the cartoon on the left, and the singlet color scheme for the cartoon on the right, to give people a concrete idea of what increased/decreased associated jet production means for the models?
        Is it possible to go one step further in the conclusion about Pythia8? I.e. can we say that this means that Pythia8 has too much 3S1[8] production vs. 3S1[1]?

Yes, that's the naive picture. However, we don't have the actual calculations. The diagrams on the bottom are just too illustrate what we measure as J/psi production vs Jet activity, i.e. J/psi + 1 (jet activity =1) or J/psi + 2 jets (jet activity = 2). I would prefer not to link it to the color single or color octet picture, how much activity there is may depend on the kinematic constraints we put etc. 

Also, we use Pythia comparison because we don't have anything else. We wouldn't usually use Pythia to conclude about the J/psi production mechanism. I've added the following bullet: "Theoretical model predictions needed" to indicate that we need CSM and NRQCD calculations to conclude more about the J/psi production mechanism. 

 

5.
        "Constraints"

Done.

 

        I would appreciate a small note on the slide about the right-most point on the plot being shifted from identically 1 to 1.05 for visualization purposes.

Added an arrow. 

 

7.
        "Indication of CNM energy loss effects"?
        Sorry for this naïve question; the claim is that we see an indication of CNM effects, but when the model incorporating energy loss in a nuclear medium also incorporates nPDFs effects (which should be more realistic, right?), it predicts a different behavior than what we see. Would the conclusion then not be that either there are other CNM effects which need to be considered, or there is some HNM contribution?

Not necessarily adding the energy loss here is more realistic. The last model takes into account the nuclear absorption (it's in fact the comover model), but also incorporates different nPDFs than the other models. At low pT we see suppression (and we're consistent with different nPDF parameterization), and so one should also take into account the CNM effect for low-pT J/psi production in A+A. 

If your question is regarding the data vs the last model prediction - the indication is rather that the assumed nuclear absorption x-section  is too large and data seem not to support it. But the main conclusion that we try to make for high pT J/psi  based on data is that the R_pA is consistent with 1 (consistent also with nPDFs) which tell is that the high-pT J/psi suppression in A+A is due the HNM effects. 

In the paper we actually have more models for p+Au , including a transport model and energy loss and we're consistent with all of them. But we don't have this version with the high-pT preliminary R_PAu results - I will ask analysers if they can prepare a new version of the preliminary plot. 

8.      "collision energy"

Done.

 

        Should this colored text be green to be consistent with s. 2? In general it would be nice to have consistent color coding throughout. [By the way, for red-green color blind people like myself, the green and red (brown?) chosen are almost indistinguishable].

Thanks for this input. I've tried to unify the color scheme, hopefully it's clearer and more visible now.

Conclusions (indications of some effects, etc.) are in bold blue and important (and significant) physics observations are in red. 

 

9.      "medium size and energy density"

Done. 

10.     Suggestion: "...of the J/\psi suppression at similar N_part -> medium energy density is key factor in J/\psi suppression" or similar.

I'll keep this conclusion for the summary - thanks for the suggestion.  

12.     "in peripheral A+A collisions"; "describe"

Done

 

14.     I'm confused by the plot on the right: these are the AuAu centralities on the upper x-axis, right? But for the same N_part, the isobars should be at a different centrality. So could this be removed?

Good catch. It's probably just a leftover from the Au+Au plot. I will ask the author to remove it.

 

        Could you add a big "J/\psi" to the plot on the left for clarity? Maybe in the y-axis title just like the Upsilon results, or maybe also add a big "Upsilon" in the white space of that plot for extra visibility.

Done. 

 

15.     Plots are cutting off the bottom text.

Corrected.

 

On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 10:29 PM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Barbara,

The slides look good already. I have minor comments below.

Thanks,
Isaac

2.
        "in the QGP" or "in the QCD medium"
        Should the "sequential quarkonium suppression" bullet be a subbullet of HNM effects, or no?

3.      Could you either add to this image the TOF label, or use one which has it labeled, since you mention it on the right?

4.
        The singlet should produce a higher jet multiplicity, right? So could you color code or in some way distinguish the "color singlet" and "color octet" in the bullet at the top of the slide, then in the diagram on the bottom right use the octet color scheme for the cartoon on the left, and the singlet color scheme for the cartoon on the right, to give people a concrete idea of what increased/decreased associated jet production means for the models?
        Is it possible to go one step further in the conclusion about Pythia8? I.e. can we say that this means that Pythia8 has too much 3S1[8] production vs. 3S1[1]?

5.
        "Constraints"
        I would appreciate a small note on the slide about the right-most point on the plot being shifted from identically 1 to 1.05 for visualization purposes.

7.
        "Indication of CNM energy loss effects"?
        Sorry for this naïve question; the claim is that we see an indication of CNM effects, but when the model incorporating energy loss in a nuclear medium also incorporates nPDFs effects (which should be more realistic, right?), it predicts a different behavior than what we see. Would the conclusion then not be that either there are other CNM effects which need to be considered, or there is some HNM contribution?

8.      "collision energy"
        Should this colored text be green to be consistent with s. 2? In general it would be nice to have consistent color coding throughout. [By the way, for red-green color blind people like myself, the green and red (brown?) chosen are almost indistinguishable].

9.      "medium size and energy density"

10.     Suggestion: "...of the J/\psi suppression at similar N_part -> medium energy density is key factor in J/\psi suppression" or similar.

12.     "in peripheral A+A collisions"; "describe"

14.     I'm confused by the plot on the right: these are the AuAu centralities on the upper x-axis, right? But for the same N_part, the isobars should be at a different centrality. So could this be removed?
        Could you add a big "J/\psi" to the plot on the left for clarity? Maybe in the y-axis title just like the Upsilon results, or maybe also add a big "Upsilon" in the white space of that plot for extra visibility.

15.     Plots are cutting off the bottom text.

> On Jun 8, 2023, at 4:40 PM, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Barbara Trzeciak (barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a
> review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/63928
>
> Deadline: 2023-06-19
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster@http://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