STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Youqi,

Please see below for my small comments on the most recent version.

Thanks,

Isaac

General: You present Monika's measurement, but it's not in your abstract or conclusions. If it's going to be presented only as a consistency check for your results, that is okay, but it should be clearly demarcated from the other results. And there should be some motivation and context for showing it, rather than just presenting it as another of the results from your study. You have one sentence about this: "This measurement provides complementary..." but we should start the paragraph with this, and make it a bit more clear that it is distinct. E.g. "To provide further insight into ___, we turn to another new STAR result which reports the observable \mu, defined as ... Note that this measurement... and does not require M > 1 GeV, but imposes otherwise identical selection criteria as described in Sec. 2. Figure 5 shows... We observe that \mu has a..." [From memory, the event/track/tower selections are the same between your and Monika's results other than the mass threshold, but obviously this should be verified before claiming it.]

24. "distance between measure" -> "distance metric between"

28 (and throughout). "detailed in Ref. [2]"

29. This sentence is a run-on, and the part "involves...re-clustered jet" is convoluted. How about breaking it up here: "...detailed in Ref. [2], starts by re-clustering the jet with an angular-ordered sequential recombination algorithm called Cambridge/Aachen [3,4]. Then the last step of the clustering is undone and the softer of the two is removed until the SoftDrop..."

32. I don't think "(p_{T})" is required here.

50. "Unlike the opposite approach of CollinearDrop, SoftDrop will then..."

76 (and throughout). The citation is not parenthetical so it should be moved outside: "anti-k_T clustering algorithm [16] (a sequential recombination algorithm)". This is also a bit of an awkward construction and I would recommend "the anti-k_T sequential recombination algorithm [16]."

77. "resolution parameter"

88. I don't understand how this is a separate thought from what you presented in the previous sentence, since RooUnfold also preserves (binned) correlation, just in fewer dimensions; but in the previous sentence you already highlighted that the dimensionality is higher for MultiFold. Maybe: "Because it preserves correlation between observables with high dimensionality, MultiFold is more desirable for this study."

91. I found this parenthetical statement distracting. It would be better as either a footnote or as its own sentence: "...used for unfolding is PYTHIA6 with the STAR tune. This is a single-parameter modification to the Perugia 2012 tune [19] to better match STAR data [20]."

113. Flip "and" and "[21]". Also Detroit tune should have a similar "(tuned to RHIC kinematics)".

140. Could you rephrase this to something similar to what Raghav sent? "Narrow splits lead to smaller transfer of virtuality or mass"

On Jun 30, 2023, at 12:59 PM, Youqi Song via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Nihar,

Thanks for signing off! I have uploaded a newer version here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DIS_Proceedings_063023.pdf

Best,

Youqi

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 7:44 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Youqi,

Thank you for implementing my comments.

> I (actually this is Isaac's idea) introduced this style so that it is
> consistent with the style for SoftDrop. Is that ok?
This camel case looks good to me: "SoftDrop" and "CollinearDrop"

L34:  where y1,2 and φ1,2 are respectively the rapidity…->  where y1,2 
and φ1,2 are, respectively, the rapidity …

I sign off.

Cheers
Nihar

On 2023-06-29 01:53, Youqi Song wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
> 
> Thanks for the comments. I have updated a new draft on drupal
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DIS_Proceedings_062823.pdf.
> Regarding this comment:
> 
>> L9: CollinearDrop -> collinear drop [ all places] But not sure why
>> you
>> introduce this style. In literature, I don't see this.
> 
> I (actually this is Isaac's idea) introduced this style so that it is
> consistent with the style for SoftDrop. Is that ok?
> 
> Best,
> Youqi
> 
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 1:32 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Youqi,
>> 
>> Please find my comments on your nicely written DIS23 proceedings.
>> 
>> Abstract:
>> L9: CollinearDrop -> collinear drop [ all places] But not sure why
>> you
>> introduce this style. In literature, I don't see this.
>> L10: …method, MultiFold, and … -> …method—MultFold—and…
>> 
>> 1. Introduction:
>> L21:    final-state particles  -> final-state hadrons
>> high-momentum-transfer  -> high-momentum transfer
>> L30: y1 and y2 are the -> y_{1,2} are the …
>> L38: "…with small θ, or large θ and large z. " -> Can you please
>> check ?
>> If it is correct; as in this analysis we use beta=0; then by
>> definition
>> small or large theta from SoftDrop.
>> L40:"…theoretically [9] (and the references within)," ->
>> "…theoretically
>> [9],…"
>> L45-47: "…which reduces the …and pileup." -> …which reduces
>> the
>> collinear contributions from the splitting, the wide-angle
>> contributions
>> from the initial-state radiation (ISR), underlying event (UE),
>> pileup as
>> well as hadronization."
>> L50: ISR, UE and pileup  ->     ISR, UE, and pileup
>> L51: "Assuming that the QCD parton shower is angular ordered, .." ->
>> Not
>> sure why it is assumed? All QCD parton showers in vacuum are angular
>> 
>> ordered (it can be space-like or time-like). Am I misunderstood
>> here?
>> "As the QCD parton shower in vacuum is angular ordered,…" is not
>> it
>> correct?
>> L53: On the other hand, the opposite of CollinearDrop, SoftDrop,
>> will
>> then capture… -> Unlike collinear drop, SoftDrop captures … ->
>> L55:    can help illustrate ->  can help illustrating
>> Eq.5: p_T^2 is not clear. Please mention in the text. Not introduced
>> 
>> yet.
>> L62: jet mass, to  -> jet mass to
>> L63:    radiation; we also ->   radiation. We also
>> L65: …Rg and zg, to study the dynamics of the parton shower.
>> ->"… Rg and
>> zg."  [Not needed "to study…" as you mentioned before]
>> L70: neutral energy towers      are reconstructed from the Barrel
>> Electro-Magnetic Calorimeter (BEMC).
>> -> neutral particles are reconstructed from the Barrel
>> Electro-Magnetic
>> Calorimeter (BEMC) towers.
>> L71:            Same quality selections … -> what is "same quality
>> selection"?
>> Please mention explicitly or "The same event, track, and tower
>> selections …"
>> L72: Events selected have a primary vertex location … ->
>> Events are
>> selected within $\pm$30 cm from…beam axis, and passed the jet
>> patch…
>> L76:          (0.2 < ET < 30 GeV), using ->           (0.2 < ET <
>> 30 GeV) using [no
>> ","]
>> L77: "          neutral pT  scalar sum fraction < 0.9, " -> what is
>> "neutral pT
>> scalar sum fraction < 0.9,"?
>> L81: "…pT of the jet constituent i, "-> "…pT of the ith jet
>> constituent,"
>> L82:            to be compared with -> to compare with the
>> L83:            uses Bayesian -> uses the Bayesian …
>> L96:            using either MultiFold or RooUnfold -> using both
>> MultiFold and
>> RooUnfold . [As you are showing comparisons using two methods]
>> L101:           it is accounted for through simultaneous reweighting
>> of ->              it
>> is accounted for simultaneous reweighting of …
>> L102: observables, based on prior ->            observables based on
>> prior
>> 
>> Results:
>> L104:           jets in -> jets within
>> L105: The error bands indicate systematic uncertainties. -> drop
>> this
>> sentence. And Put in the caption of Fig.2
>> L126: …perturbative DGLAP splitting function goes as 1/z ->
>> …perturbative DGLAP splitting function follows 1/z behavior.
>> 
>> Conclusions:
>> I would suggest to include one sentence on "MultiFold" and
>> "RoounFold"
>> comparison based on fig.1. It is important.
>> 
>> Best
>> Nihar
>> 
>> On 2023-06-23 04:01, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>> 
>>> Youqi Song (youqi.song AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a
>> review,
>>> please have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64115
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 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