STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Gabe,

Thanks for implementing my comments. I sign off.

Best,

Isaac

On Jul 13, 2023, at 18:38, Gabe Dale-Gau via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:



Hi Yi, Nihar, and Isaac,

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. I have updated my submission to include the changes.

Please find my response to each of you individual comments below.

Best,

Gabe

Isaac:

 

2 (and throughout). "\mathrm{NN}"

 

Done

7. Sorry if I'm being dense, but how is this "despite" apparent medium-induced changes to jet fragmentation patterns?

 

You are right the grammar here doesn’t quite add up. I think the “despite” was left over from a previous version of the abstract where it made more sense. I changed it to “Alongside apparent medium-induced changes to jet fragmentation patterns, …”

9. "a new" -> "an exotic"

Done

10. "p+p collisions, in which the QGP is not expected to be formed."

Done

14.
        I would split these references out so [2] goes after "particle spectra", etc. Otherwise it seems like you're only referencing jet quenching results.
        The sentence "Modification..." is unnecessary.

I removed the group reference instance, because I reference all three papers in the same paragraph. The sentence “Modification…” has been removed.
19.
        "collimated"
        "collections of particles resulting from the fragmentation of hard-scattered partons..."

Changed to “Jets, collimated collections of particles produced by fragmentation and hadronization of hard-scattered partons, … “

22. I'm not sure the sentence "Jet quenching..." is necessary. It's a bit repetitive of what was said before, and doesn't really add anything vital for your argument.

This sentence has been rephrased to improve the flow of the paragraph

34 (and throughout). Can you please upright all descriptive text in math environments (e.g. "const", "raw", "jet", etc.)? It's easier to read that way.

Done

39. The "mixed event method" should have a reference for those not familiar with it. Or you should go into detail about how we do it.

I added a few sentences to explain how mixing is performed

Figure 2. "2.4 GeV/c"; "m^{2} [GeV^2/c^{4}]" [Similar comment for Fig. 3].

49.
        "as well as an overlay in mass..."
        What does "equivalent subtraction" mean here?

Rephrased to “an overlay in mass squared as an example of the PID distributions corresponding to the jet and UE regions”. My original phrasing of “equivalent subtraction” was an attempt to communicate that our background subtraction technique is applies for all 4 applicable variables, dPhi, dEta, nSigmaPi, and m^2. However, this is established in an earlier sentence.

Figure 3.
        Why do the pT ranges in large bold text seem to conflict with the ones in the titles of the panels?

The bold text represents the range in which each PID technique is applicable, and the individual plot titles represent the specific range included in the plots. These are each examples of what a fit looks like within the analysis for real bins in pT

        ">" -> "<" for the right two panels.

done

        For the proceedings I don't think we need the big bright boundaries on the high and low pT ranges. As long as it's described in the caption, it should be okay.

removed

60. You already introduced p_T^const, so: "with p_T^const > 2.0 GeV/c" is fine.

Good point, updated.

64 (and throughout). "in-jet"

Rephrased this sentence, no longer uses “in-jet”

Figure 4 caption: "against"

done

67. This is actually from QCD and you can give a reference here. E.g. https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1501.06197.pdf__%3B!!P4SdNyxKAPE!F2R323MueRjH5jJ55yfcvf2jjCtEi2pyojrqsnLtdHE265qrPhOWcc7dvnGEEPzsnreoA1VEpYlLaspsu90ExW1YEZ-UUs4%24&data=05%7C01%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7Cb109fd74cc1e4ee40fd808db826c6176%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638247174254405165%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mxY2WOgk84w92%2FQovwTV5gBmi2m6ZOxhPxlYXHkCbK0%3D&reserved=0  (Fig. 1.38).

Thanks for this reference! I have updated and added a citation

68. I would focus here instead on the effect the p_T^const has on the background contribution, similar to how you phrased it in s. 13 of your HP talk.

The use of p_T^const as a control on background contamination is really only applicable in the Au+Au data set, given that we see no change in the resulting ratios from p+p, and little change in the associated yields with a change in p_T^const minimum. In this paragraph I am trying to focus specifically on our p+p results, so this sentence is intended to provide further motivation for the inclusion of both p_T^const > 3 and p_T^const > 2 results in p+p, absent of the Au+Au comparison.

77. "hardest fragmenting"?

Rephrased to “The collection of leading jets in from central heavy-ion data may be subject to "survivor bias," that is, have the least interaction with the medium”

86. I would mention again the observation that the pp p/pi ratio in jets is less than the inclusive case, even if it was expected.

done

90. "sitting well below" is imprecise/informal. -> "with the proton-to-pion ratio in jets significantly smaller than the inclusive case."

Rephrased to “significantly below the ratio reported for inclusive Au+Au collisions of the same centrality”

 

 

 

Nihar:

 

Title:Baryon to Meson  -> Baryon-to-Meson

 

done

Abstract:
_ …from 200 GeV Au+Au and p+p collisions.. -> … in Au+Au and p+p
collisions at sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 200 GeV …

done

Fig.1, Can you please adjust the position of Fig.1 inside your latex
file so that it should not appear before the Introduction?

 

done

L9: Heavy ion -> Heavy-ion [and other places]

 

done

L11-14: Please try to combine these sentences. Besides, "modification of
charged particle spectra" and "jet quenching" are the same phenomenon.
You could also include "melting of quarkonia"

For example: "Key signatures of QGP are jet quenching, melting of
quarkonia, and enhancement of baryon-to-meson ratio production, etc."

 

This passage has been reworked, and I hope it flows better now. I will omit a mention of “melting of quarkonia” because I think it is a little tangential to the point of my analysis

L14: "Modification of charged particle spectra is measured a … -> Not
required in this context. Please drop it.

 

done

L15: "The observed differences in all of these observables …" ->  In
this sentence it is not clear to me "that cannot simply be modeled as a
large collection of binary collisions" Can you please elaborate what do
you mean here? Or rephrase.

 

I was trying to evoke the idea behind R_AA here to strengthen the claim that we can study QGP with heavy-ion collisions, but I see how it would need more context, so for now I have removed mention of binary collisions.

L18: …enhancement in relative baryon production … ->            … relative
enhancement in baryon production [ but not clear "relative to what?"]

 

Rephrased to “enhancement in baryon production relative to meson production”

L19: Jets are columnated collections of hard scattered particle
production that are present in … -> Jets are collimated sprays of
hadrons produced from hard scatterings of partons in both p+p…

Rephrased to “Jets, collimated collections of particles produced by fragmentation and hadronization of hard-scattered partons,…”

L21: probes for the study of QGP -> probes to study the QGP…

 

done

L22:    Jet quenching has been observed in this fashion, serving … -> Not
required at this point. Please drop this sentence.

 

done

L24:    features of QGP; baryon enhancement a … -> features of QGP: baryon
enhancement a

 

done

L25: …aiming to further develop understanding of how jets fragment in …
-> This part is not required. Either you make another sentence or remove
it.

 

I split it off into a second sentence

L26:    Recent AMPT simulations lead us to expect an … ->               Recent AMPT
simulations predicts an enhancement of baryon-to-meson ration inside jet
in heavy-ion collisions [].

 

done

L28-29:         …ratios from Au+Au and p+p collisions at at √𝑠𝑁 𝑁 = 200 GeV. ->
…ratios in Au+Au and p+p collisions at sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 200 GeV.

 

done

L32:    Time of Flight  ->      Time-of-Flight

 

done

L33: Jet clustering is performed according to the anti-𝑘T algorithm ->
Jets are reconstructed using anti-kT algorithm,

 

done

L34:    constituent 𝑝T, 𝑝T𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 , minima [6]. -> constituent transverse
momentum, 𝑝T𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 [6].

 

done

p_{T}^const -> $p_{\rm T}^{\rm const}$ [all places]
p_{T}^{raw} ->p_{\rm T}^{\rm raw}
Please follow the guidelines for symbols:
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="https%3A%2F%2Fiupac.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F01%2FICTNS-On-the-use-of-italic-and-roman-fonts-for-symbols-in-scientific-text.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7Cf17f91e897f541d238dc08db82dc119b%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638247654004156599%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GH%2F7XC9wPwMsg6ld2%2Fx6114bhO24m7%2BR35W807nvyG8%3D&reserved=0

Apply for eta_jet and phi_jet, etc.

 

done

L35: 10 GeV/c -> 10 GeV/\it{c} [other places]

 

done

L39:    resulting distribution to 1 at maximum ->       resulting distribution
to unity at maximum

 

done

L40:    dividing it out of the raw correlation signal. -> Not clear .
Please rephrase it.

 

Changed to “dividing the raw correlation by the mixed event distribution”

 

L43:    equal area away from the peak in 𝑑𝜂 to is -> equal area away from
the peak in 𝑑𝜂 is

 

done

L45: hadrochemistry sitting beneath the signal,  -> Please elaborate. It
is not clear.

 

Added “in $d\phi$ rather than d$\eta$ to ensure an accurate assessment…” to clarify the point. I’m not fully sure what you find unclear about this sentence, I hope that helps

 

L46: in relative azimuth ->  in azimuth.

 

done

L46:            Histograms are constructed in each .. -> Not clear what
"Histograms"? Better to mention the observables or quantity that you
fill the histo.
"UE distributions are subtracted from jet distributions. " ->  is that
correct "from jet distributions" ?

 

(for both above comments)

 

Changed to:

“Histograms are constructed in d$\phi$, d$\eta$, $m^{2}$, and $n\sigma_{\pi}$ from these selections, and UE is subtracted from jet in all four parameters.”

L50: what is "PID variables. " ?

 

Rephrased, no longer includes “PID variables”

L51: To achieve PID two … -> For particle identification, the two
different ….

 

Done

…for the low and high -> at the low and high p_{\rm T} as shown in
Fig.3. ["respectively" not needed]

 

Done

L52: "…ToF resolution is very good, so proton yields.. " -> if ToF
resolution is good, then why proton yield can be directly bin-counted.
Mention the reason.

 

Changed to “ToF resolution allows the proton yields to be directly bin-counted, given the clean separation of the proton peak.”

L53: what are "nSigma_pi" and "dE/dx"? Mention it in the text.

Added a description at the beginning of the paragraph.

L63:    in all jets from p+p collisions. -> for all jets in p+p collisions.

Done

 

What is "    inclusive ratio "? Please explain/mention it before.

 

Added a description at first in-text mention

L64: …as ALICE has observed similar  -> as the ALICE experiment has
observed the similar behavior in … at the LHC [].

 

Rephrased this sentence

L66: "Broader jet selections tend to have a higher fraction of gluon
jets " -> Not sure, how do you conclude ?

 

I added a reference on jet shapes for quark and gluon jets to back up this point

L69: "A higher 𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡 minimum corresponds …" -> rephrase this. Not
clear.

 

Rephrased this section

L78: so it is perhaps unsurprising that the in jet 𝑝/𝜋 ratio is
un-modified. -> the p/pi ratio of jet could be unmodifed. [no need to
mention "perhaps unsurprising"; better to write what we observed]
However,  "These are the jets that are expected to have the least
interaction with the medium, …" is not a correct statement. How do we
know?

 

Rephrased this section

L80-81: introduces further background handling considerations. ->
introduces additional background in heavy-ion collisions.

 

done

L82: "Given the stability of the in-jet ratios from " -> Not clear what
"stability"? Please elaborate and write down.

changed to “Given the consistency of the in-jet ratios from p+p across various jet selections”

L85: the first ever -> the first

 

done

L87: p/pi ratio is stable,  -> Not a correct way. Please mention what is
"stable" meaning?

 

Rephrased to remove the term “stable”

L90: "          the inclusive band " -> that of inclusive p/pi ratio.

 

done

Fig.2: Caption
"The center plot shows and overlay in 𝑑𝜙 of the two regions." -> The
center plot shows the 𝑑𝜙 distributions of the two regions.

 

done

Fig.4: "A published inclusive band is included for comparison agains the
bulk 𝑝/𝜋 ratio behavior" -> "The band represents the  p/pi ratio
measured from the inclusive proton and pion measurements []. "
"Inclusive bands" -> "inclusive p/pi ratio"

 

done

 

 

 

 

Yi:

 

- General: all p+p --> $p$+$p$

 

done

 

 - Figure 1: it would be good if it can be moved to page 3

 

done

 

 - L7: LHC results --> the LHC results 

 

done

 

 - L9: Heavy ion collisions--> Heavy-ion collisions 

 

done

 

 - L17, L20: heavy ion --> heavy-ion collisions 

 

done

 

 - L35: define pT^raw first

 

done

 

 - L41: Fig.1 --> Figure 1

 

done

 

 - L51: pT --> I believe you meant pT^const, if so please be specific.

 

This is a subtle point, I use pT^const only in reference to the constituents that are given to the jetfinder, while I analyze the full event after establishing a jet axis. Here I mean to say simply pT, because I am referencing my full sample of “in-jet” tracks, which is defined by their position in dphi, deta space. For the purpose of this analysis I would like to keep these separate, because the tracks that I consider “in-jet” include those that are below the pT^const minima.

 

 - L65: LHC --> the LHC 

 

done

 

 - L86: In p+p --> In $p$+$p$, 

 

done

 

 

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 8:52 AM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Gabe,

Thanks a lot for the nice proceedings. I only have some minor comments for your consideration. 

 - General: all p+p --> $p$+$p$

 - Figure 1: it would be good if it can be moved to page 3

 - L7: LHC results --> the LHC results 

 - L9: Heavy ion collisions--> Heavy-ion collisions 

 - L17, L20: heavy ion --> heavy-ion collisions 

 - L35: define pT^raw first

 - L41: Fig.1 --> Figure 1

 - L51: pT --> I believe you meant pT^const, if so please be specific. 

 - L65: LHC --> the LHC 

 - L86: In p+p --> In $p$+$p$, 

 

Cheers,

Yi

On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 2:15 AM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,

Gabriel Dale-Gau (gdaleg2 AT uic.edu) has submitted a material for a review, 
please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64220

---
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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="https%3A%2F%2Flists.bnl.gov%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstar-hp-l&data=05%7C01%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C71ce76025f7c4b13a40d08db82df3b95%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638247667530007757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=23kjFV7V%2BktQGhw6Szv%2BoOpKvvv%2BTWu5JvYi3OtJCQw%3D&reserved=0

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