STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Gabe,

I don't have further comments.
I sign off.

Cheers
Nihar

On 2023-07-14 04:06, Gabe Dale-Gau via Star-hp-l 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
> [3]  (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
> [4]
>
> 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 [1]
> > >
> > > ---
> > > 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 [2]
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > [2]
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov*2FSTAR*2Fnode*2F64220&amp;data=05*7C01*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C71ce76025f7c4b13a40d08db82df3b95*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638247667530007757*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=aIITlQbtccDyeLP*2BZacbbUK7krWCi2F7m20mMCMsFgg*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!BKE6A-ik6wLBhDU4yO3DsykMk2p_A671a8OvB6pUFxy6hFH3A9zkh4mG91x65cQVwHP26boMgxN8LJNoPidfKD0$
> [2] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Flists.bnl.gov*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fstar-hp-l&amp;data=05*7C01*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C71ce76025f7c4b13a40d08db82df3b95*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638247667530007757*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=23kjFV7V*2BktQGhw6Szv*2BoOpKvvv*2BTWu5JvYi3OtJCQw*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!P4SdNyxKAPE!BKE6A-ik6wLBhDU4yO3DsykMk2p_A671a8OvB6pUFxy6hFH3A9zkh4mG91x65cQVwHP26boMgxN8LJNo5X0QNRY$
> [3] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__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&amp;data=05*7C01*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7Cb109fd74cc1e4ee40fd808db826c6176*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638247174254405165*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=mxY2WOgk84w92*2FQovwTV5gBmi2m6ZOxhPxlYXHkCbK0*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!BKE6A-ik6wLBhDU4yO3DsykMk2p_A671a8OvB6pUFxy6hFH3A9zkh4mG91x65cQVwHP26boMgxN8LJNoRiwj4ro$
> [4] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__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&amp;data=05*7C01*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7Cf17f91e897f541d238dc08db82dc119b*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638247654004156599*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=GH*2F7XC9wPwMsg6ld2*2Fx6114bhO24m7*2BR35W807nvyG8*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!BKE6A-ik6wLBhDU4yO3DsykMk2p_A671a8OvB6pUFxy6hFH3A9zkh4mG91x65cQVwHP26boMgxN8LJNoYFEQru8$
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l