STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Isaac,

Please find my reply inline.
I have rephrased a few sentences in the same version-1 as mentioned 
below.

Thank you
Nihar


On 2023-07-31 22:57, Mooney, Isaac wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> Thanks a lot for addressing my comments. I just have one major
> response to your replies (see below).
>
> -Isaac
>
> > On Jul 31, 2023, at 4:34 AM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> > Hello Isaac,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments.
> > I have implemented most of them in v1.
> >
> > My replies can be found below.
> >
> > > Physics/structure/message
> > > 36. This is slightly misleading, since the jet mass itself is not
> > > presented. Rather the >CollinearDropped mass is shown (and >the
> > > groomed mass fraction is discussed as well). This is probably >too
> > > detailed to go into at this point in the proceedings, so >maybe
> > > "jet mass, and jet shape" could >just be changed to "observables
> > > relating to the distribution of momentum and >energy within the
> > > jet" or >similar. Although then I would almost suggest just
> > > removing "like energy-energy...jet shape".
> >
> > I modified the sentence. DM/M and mu are observables related to jet
> > mass, whereas girth and rho(r) are jet shape observables.
> >
> > > 80. It should be mentioned somewhere that the CD measurement uses
> > > MultiFold since this is a novel and >exciting technique.
> >
> > I added one sentence. L93 in current version
> >
> > > 92. This is a bit vague, and I'm not sure it will come across what
> > > DeltaM/M actually is. Instead of >"the jet mass fraction
> > > > resulting from the CollinearDrop", I would recommend something
> > > like "the >fraction of the jet mass that would be groomed >away by
> > > SoftDrop"
> > I rephrased it a bit differently. Please have a look at it.
> >
> > > 96. "indicates narrower splits lead to smaller virtuality
> > > transfer"
> > I find it complicated.  I keep as it is.
>  > I don’t understand what is complicated about this phrasing.
> It’s actually something more directly tied to the actual data. I
> believe pretty strongly that this is a better phrasing than the
> original which I think can lead to confusion. We had a discussion over
> email about this with Raghav who suggested the new phrase to avoid
> this confusion (July 3 was their response if you want to read it) and
> it is how it was referred to subsequently in Monika’s proceedings.
I rephrased this sentence "The 𝜇 represents the mass sharing of the hard 
splitting; this decreases for narrower splits of a groomed jet."

> > > 102. "whereas PYTHIA-8 may need further tuning of parameters
> > > related to the hard process and jet >evolution"
> > I rephrased.
> >
> > > 124. Is this true? What about
> > > >
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Finspirehep.net%2Fliterature%2F1817734__%3B!!P4SdNyxKAPE!C1ucvZ-&data=05%7C01%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C0e79ad31931f401b7b1808db91a0f8e4%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638263893678931494%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dHdAuLSNUOBJdfHvLfuYZcE6LAhtfQIy8FCvL%2B42TDo%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> [1]>aaitRDJD7FN_jphkNYEZ1A2Al0Ko79fMBiQH2CSg-3LalJgqpIeq0gCyjOULO39xTavwu6zW6znO6xDD5ureW$
> > > ? >Maybe you >meant to say "at RHIC"? Also, I think there should
> > > at least be some comment about the physics of this >result >even
> > > if it's as quick as "which could potentially be explained by
> > > medium response".
> >
> > Please note that, for the first time, both STAR and ALICE reported
> > together the observation of jet acoplanarity at QM2022. I agree to
> > add "at RHIC". In the same sentence, it was mentioned "…due to
> > jet-medium interaction in heavy-ion collisions."
> > This is what we can say from experiment at this point on physics
> > message. Mechanisms are for theorists.
>  > I disagree with this, but if you feel uncomfortable making any
> claims, I won’t push it.
Ok
> > > 136. Again, I think it would be good to have a half-sentence
> > > explanation of the result, even if we >point to the reference for
> > > > the full story. You do this on l. 143 very nicely. Something like
> > > > "suggesting that at least for high-p_T constituents, QGP
> > > > coalescence does not contribute to the >hadronization process in
> > > a jet."
> >
> > I think we need a detailed study on this baryon-to-meson ratio in
> > jet that Gabe is working on. And we should not draw any conclusion
> > on these preliminary results. Let's wait for final results.
> >
> > > 160. I don't understand why only the suppression in Au+Au
> > > collisions is highlighted as strong. I would >also call the isobar
> > > suppression strong at high multiplicity.
> >
> > Yes, you can call it but not stronger than Au+Au. Please see Fig.8
> > left. And compare blue and red markers.
>  > Agreed, I would not call it stronger than Au+Au, I just didn’t
> understand the focus on one over the other since they are both strong
> levels of suppression.

I rephrased it "A strong 𝐽/𝜓 suppression is seen at large ⟨𝑁part⟩"

> > > 170. It would be interesting to add a reference to a paper which
> > > calculates the dissociation >temperature of Upsilon so an
> > > > inference can be made about the minimum peak temperature of the
> > > QGP at >RHIC.
> > I have added STAR PRL paper reference. Other relevant information
> > can be found in this paper.
> >
> > > 196. I'm not sure what this sentence is intended to mean. …
> > I rephrased that sentence.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Nihar
> >
> > On 2023-07-30 01:01, Mooney, Isaac wrote:
> > Hi Nihar,
> > Your proceedings lay out STAR’s hard probes program very well. I
> > have
> > some comments below, but the majority are just spelling and grammar
> > related, so I grouped them together.
> > Thanks,
> > Isaac
> > Spelling/grammar/other small things
> > 10. "aims to investigate"
> > 12. "Amassing a..."
> > 14. "hard probes"
> > 16. "QGP" or "the QGP's"
> > 20. "is compared"
> > 24. "antiquarks"
> > 29. "processes"
> > 30. "to explore the" -> "exploration of the"; "regimes"
> > 32. Remove "constant"
> > 33. "serve as a"
> > 34. "experiment's"
> > 35. "conference in Aschaffenburg..."
> > 37. "phenomena
> > 38. "studied" -> "done"/"accomplished"/...; "direct photon + jet,
> > and
> > hadron+jet" -> "jets recoiling from hadrons or direct photons"
> > 40, 41. "are also discussed", "are thoroughly discussed" is
> > repetitive.
> > 42. "for the hard"
> > 44. "experiment"; "comprises several..."
> > 45. "A recent"
> > 47. "for triggering, and for"
> > 50. "Plane"; Problem with singular/plural clash here. Suggest: "The
> > Event-Plane Detector (EPD) is composed of two symmetric halves
> > placed
> > at both..."
> > 54. "subsystems"
> > 56. "enabling detection of neutral..."
> > 57. Remove "high p_T" since it's at forward eta; funny spacing
> > between
> > "<" and "4".
> > 64. Another singular/plural clash here => "correlator (or EEC)
> > helps..."
> > 66. "allows one to measure" or "allows for measurement of"; "in
> > QCD".
> > 69. "using the anti-k_T algorithm in p+p collisions"
> > 72. "angular"
> > 74. Remove "with a"
> > 76. "in the quark-gluon regime"; "\times" is unnecessary
> > 79. "observable"
> > 81. What you said is true, but it omits its use just to remove NP
> > contribution from the jet shower/hadronization.
> > 85. "of the parton shower" or "of parton showers"
> > 88 (and throughout): "in Ref. [7]"
> > 89. Move "the" after "pQCD and"
> > 95. "as defined and shown in"
> > 102. "observables"
> > 111. This sentence seems a bit garbled. E.g. "R=0.2 over 0.5 (...)
> > coincidence" is not coherent. Maybe: "...reports the comparison
> > (R^0.2/0.5) of yields of jets with two different radii (0.2, 0.5)
> > recoiling from direct..."
> > 116. "contributes to our understanding of"
> > 119. Remove "On the other hand"
> > 126. This is worded a bit misleadingly. It makes it seem like you're
> > saying the baryon/meson ratio in heavy-ion collisions is > 1, which
> > is
> > not what is meant. Suggest: "The enhancement of the baryon-to-meson
> > yield ratio in heavy-ion collisions compared to pp collisions..."
> > 133. "preference for pion production over proton production"; "on
> > the
> > left of Fig..."
> > 135. "200 GeV, for jets with a hard-core selection and radius of
> > 0.3,
> > the (p+\bar{p})..."
> > 146. "jets show"
> > 147. "consistent with that from"
> > 149. "A semi-inclusive measurement of recoil jets in coincidence
> > with
> > a charged hadron within trigger p_T of...is also presented"
> > 151. "systems" (also 153.)
> > Fig. 7. "as a function of p_T,jet"
> > 153. Remove "In STAR,"
> > 160. "However"
> > 161. "Besides" -> "In addition"
> > 162. "along with its"; "no significant"
> > 165. "states"; "thermalization"
> > 166. "and sizes"
> > 169. "significantly more"
> > References: Can you hyperlink the DOIs and arXiv numbers?
> > Physics/structure/message
> > 36. This is slightly misleading, since the jet mass itself is not
> > presented. Rather the CollinearDropped mass is shown (and the
> > groomed
> > mass fraction is discussed as well). This is probably too detailed
> > to
> > go into at this point in the proceedings, so maybe "jet mass, and
> > jet
> > shape" could just be changed to "observables relating to the
> > distribution of momentum and energy within the jet" or similar.
> > Although then I would almost suggest just removing "like
> > energy-energy...jet shape".
> > 80. It should be mentioned somewhere that the CD measurement uses
> > MultiFold since this is a novel and exciting technique.
> > 92. This is a bit vague, and I'm not sure it will come across what
> > DeltaM/M actually is. Instead of "the jet mass fraction resulting
> > from
> > the CollinearDrop", I would recommend something like "the fraction
> > of
> > the jet mass that would be groomed away by SoftDrop"
> > 96. "indicates narrower splits lead to smaller virtuality transfer"
> > 102. "whereas PYTHIA-8 may need further tuning of parameters related
> > to the hard process and jet evolution"
> > 124. Is this true? What about
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Finspirehep.net%2Fliterature%2F1817734__%3B!!P4SdNyxKAPE!C1ucvZ-aaitRDJD7FN_jphkNYEZ1A2Al0Ko79fMBiQH2CSg-3LalJgqpIeq0gCyjOULO39xTavwu6zW6znO6xDD5ureW%24&data=05%7C01%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C0e79ad31931f401b7b1808db91a0f8e4%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638263893679087272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WpY36Xn8FoOxuNIHrznCDEexwz89FDSvZzelMND95Ys%3D&reserved=0
> > [2]
> > ? Maybe you meant to say "at RHIC"? Also, I think there should at
> > least be some comment about the physics of this result even if it's
> > as
> > quick as "which could potentially be explained by medium response".
> > 136. Again, I think it would be good to have a half-sentence
> > explanation of the result, even if we point to the reference for the
> > full story. You do this on l. 143 very nicely. Something like
> > "suggesting that at least for high-p_T constituents, QGP coalescence
> > does not contribute to the hadronization process in a jet."
> > 160. I don't understand why only the suppression in Au+Au collisions
> > is highlighted as strong. I would also call the isobar suppression
> > strong at high multiplicity.
> > 170. It would be interesting to add a reference to a paper which
> > calculates the dissociation temperature of Upsilon so an inference
> > can
> > be made about the minimum peak temperature of the QGP at RHIC.
> > 196. I'm not sure what this sentence is intended to mean. Do you
> > mean
> > that the results cast doubt on our ability to discern the effect of
> > the initial medium configuration on hard probes? Because I don't see
> > how you get that from the results. We have a positive jet v2 which
> > seems to suggest the opposite. And the J/psi v2 is almost
> > centrality-inclusive and has large uncertainties, and even so there
> > may be a hint of a v2 for the TPC EP method. And your sentence is a
> > very broad statement not just about STAR data but about "heavy-ion
> > collisions" in general, which also seems contradicted by other
> > results
> > from the field, e.g.
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F2307.14097.pdf__%3B!!P4SdNyxKAPE!C1ucvZ-aaitRDJD7FN_jphkNYEZ1A2Al0Ko79fMBiQH2CSg-3LalJgqpIeq0gCyjOULO39xTavwu6zW6znO6xD3ZHcVi%24&data=05%7C01%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C0e79ad31931f401b7b1808db91a0f8e4%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638263893679087272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=omJlYh8n0AzsltlAyc5ZqRFyoW0py2FGuYLmNvGZeDQ%3D&reserved=0
> > [3]
> > . I also don't understand how we can reconcile that the RAA in
> > isobar
> > and AA is only dependent on Npart -- which is related to energy
> > density -- with your statement that there are questions about
> > sensitivity to the initial energy density. This seems to be exactly
> > what these results are sensitive to.
> > But maybe I am misunderstanding what "raises questions" meant, in
> > which case some different language could be used. Maybe you meant
> > instead that it leads to future possibilities to explore the role of
> > geometry in heavy-ion collisions.
> > On Jul 26, 2023, at 2:23 AM, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > Sorry for this late submission of my proceedings on HP2023 STAR
> > highlights.
> > I requested HP2023 organizers to consider my late submission by
> > email and they agreed to consider it.
> > So it would be Ok from their side.
> > As you know, Joern Putschke kindly presented for me at HP2023.
> > However, he suggested me to put only my name for the STAR
> > collaboration in these proceedings. If there is any STAR rule in
> > this direction, please let us know.
> > Please have a look at my HP2023 proceedings on STAR highlights.
> > Thank you
> > Nihar
> > On 2023-07-26 11:38, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > Nihar Sahoo (nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov) has submitted a material for a
> > review,
> > please have a look:
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov%2FSTAR%2Fnode%2F64418&data=05%7C01%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C0e79ad31931f401b7b1808db91a0f8e4%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638263893679087272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ewSNgY89ae%2B%2BVHhR3Gj6QbPCr%2BAK4kVWlH0pReqIGZk%3D&reserved=0
> > [4]
> > ---
> > If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster@https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.star.bnl.gov%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C0e79ad31931f401b7b1808db91a0f8e4%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638263893679087272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IRVUSlyJT26%2BbrdD%2FkapxxBSEJLNJsw6BGVCAVcnPTY%3D&reserved=0
> > [5]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.bnl.gov%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstar-hp-l&data=05%7C01%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C0e79ad31931f401b7b1808db91a0f8e4%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638263893679087272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=U3%2F8aRHP6nlCZH6FJf1ji%2Bqw0%2Fg5gdTfK8iGi9uyD%2Fo%3D&reserved=0
> > [6]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.bnl.gov%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstar-hp-l&data=05%7C01%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C0e79ad31931f401b7b1808db91a0f8e4%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638263893679087272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=U3%2F8aRHP6nlCZH6FJf1ji%2Bqw0%2Fg5gdTfK8iGi9uyD%2Fo%3D&reserved=0
> > [6]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://inspirehep.net/literature/1817734__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!C1ucvZ-
> [2] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://inspirehep.net/literature/1817734__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!C1ucvZ-aaitRDJD7FN_jphkNYEZ1A2Al0Ko79fMBiQH2CSg-3LalJgqpIeq0gCyjOULO39xTavwu6zW6znO6xDD5ureW$
> [3] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.14097.pdf__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!C1ucvZ-aaitRDJD7FN_jphkNYEZ1A2Al0Ko79fMBiQH2CSg-3LalJgqpIeq0gCyjOULO39xTavwu6zW6znO6xD3ZHcVi$
> [4] https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64418
> [5] http://www.star.bnl.gov/
> [6] https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l