STAR HardProbes PWG

[Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com>]

Hi Nihar and Barbara, please find answers to your questions below.

Nihar:

Delta_R new results seem no discernible change. Is that correct? Although, it is not necessary to have any change, but do you understand why it is the case?

That is correct. There is no discernable change to Delta R because the corrections I made post QM2022 made changes to the reconstructed jet pT only. I speculate that the jet eta, phi, D0 eta, phi remained more or less similar. I will have an eta phi plot on Tuesday to share. The pT changes can be seen here.

Barbara:

You show plots with different D pT lower cuts, then as an example you show plots with D pT of 4-10 GeV/c and on slide 18 D pT > 5 GeV/c. I'm confused which range you plan to use, especially for the potential new preliminaries.

The plan has always been to have preliminaries in these D0 pT bins [1-10], [2-10],[3-10],[4-10],[5-10] GeV/c. Unfolding within say 1-4 GeV comes with the caveat of a generated 4 GeV D0 meson smearing out of reconstructed D0 pT [1-4] GeV acceptance, and adds complexity to an already incredibly difficult problem. That's why by lowering the D0 pT acceptance gradually, we add in more and more contributions from the low D0 pT end, and see how our observables change.

Can you specify what the centrality ranges for "Central", "MidCentral" and "Peripheral" are? From slide 18 I see that you have a different peripheral bin now, but it's not clear if it's the same on other slides.

The definitions for the D0 Jets analysis have been consistent. Central is 0-10%, MidCentral is 10-40%, Peripheral is 40-80%. I will discuss slide 18 below.

 Slide 8-16: you show an example of 4-10 GeV/c bin. But lower D pT should be more challenging, could you please also add the same plots with D pT selection of 1-4 GeV/c.

Like I mentioned above, we want to show this in cumulative pT bins. So instead of 1-4 GeV, it will be 1-10 GeV. I have the plots, just double-checking. I will have them on Tuesday.

- Please specify which plots exactly you would like to request as preliminary. 

We need to see if it's enough different physics to have a new preliminary. 

I think what was discussed is that going e.g. to low D pT of 1 GeV/c could justify a new preliminary on the same observable. And then we should also see what statement to make about the previous preliminaries. Lowering from 5 to 4 GeV/c D pT or changing the peripheral bin to more peripheral, doesn't seem to me like really a new thing. It's rather the same physics we show and given the one preliminary rule that we have I would be rather reluctant to approve it.

As I mentioned earlier, the plan has always been to scan the whole D0 pT range that we can access. That's what sets this measurement apart from what they might have at ALICE (different and lower kinematic reach). As such, we would like to have [1-10], [2-10], [3-10], [4-10] preliminaries now. As you can see in Slide #3 of my presentation, Jet pT RCP is pretty consistent for all D0 pT bins, that is a non-trivial statement which is new. Also, like I mentioned above, my centrality definitions have not changed at all.

Slide 18: here the only difference w.r.t. to the preliminary in the range of the peripheral bin. To me it looks that it's not enough of different physics, I wouldn't expect much difference between 60-80% and 40-80%, and naturally you lower quite a bit your statistics.  Could you please show a comparison of pT spectra between 60-80% and 40-80%, and then a comparison of R_CP with the two peripheral choices. 

The issue here is that now when people look at this and your preliminary plot, the obvious question is why there's so much difference between 60-80% and 40-80% used in the denominator. Same goes for lowering D pT from 5 to 4 GeV/c.

I should have clarified slide 18 better. Apologies. Slide 18 is a comparison to STAR inclusive charged jets result. The RCP results they have in the paper are for 0-10%/60-80%. For D0 analysis, 60-80% centrality is not feasible in terms of unfolding, so we can not directly compare the results. Yet, just to get a general hint of the trend, I put them on the same plot. I will make this more clear, and of course, we will discuss this in the Tuesday meeting.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Cheers,

 

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 4:13 AM Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Niel,

I have a few questions regarding your new results and plan for preliminaries. 

Unfortunately, I may not be able to connect for your presentation on Tuesday. But please discuss the below points with the conveners at the meeting.

- You show plots with different D pT lower cuts, then as an example you show plots with D pT of 4-10 GeV/c and on slide 18 D pT > 5 GeV/c. I'm confused which range you plan to use, especially for the potential new preliminaries.

- Can you specify what the centrality ranges for "Central", "MidCentral" and "Peripheral" are? From slide 18 I see that you have a different peripheral bin now, but it's not clear if it's the same on other slides. 

- Slide 8-16: you show an example of 4-10 GeV/c bin. But lower D pT should be more challenging, could you please also add the same plots with D pT selection of 1-4 GeV/c. 

- Please specify which plots exactly you would like to request as preliminary. 

We need to see if it's enough different physics to have a new preliminary. 

I think what was discussed is that going e.g. to low D pT of 1 GeV/c could justify a new preliminary on the same observable. And then we should also see what statement to make about the previous preliminaries. Lowering from 5 to 4 GeV/c D pT or changing the peripheral bin to more peripheral, doesn't seem to me like really a new thing. It's rather the same physics we show and given the one preliminary rule that we have I would be rather reluctant to approve it. 

- Slide 18: here the only difference w.r.t. to the preliminary in the range of the peripheral bin. To me it looks that it's not enough of different physics, I wouldn't expect much difference between 60-80% and 40-80%, and naturally you lower quite a bit your statistics.  Could you please show a comparison of pT spectra between 60-80% and 40-80%, and then a comparison of R_CP with the two peripheral choices. 

The issue here is that now when people look at this and your preliminary plot, the obvious question is why there's so much difference between 60-80% and 40-80% used in the denominator. Same goes for lowering D pT from 5 to 4 GeV/c. 

Cheers,

Barbara

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 9:45 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Diptanil,

We could not discuss your presentation yesterday, however I tried to go
through your presentation slides today.

If I understand correctly from your slide#3 and 7, it seems your Rcp
result has been changed in comparison with your last QM2020 preliminary
results whereas you Delta_R new results seem no discernible change. Is
that correct?

Although, it is not necessary to have any change, but do you understand
why it is the case?

We can discuss on your other results at next Tuesday meeting.

Best
Nihar



On 2023-08-10 11:01, Diptanil Roy wrote:
> Hi everyone, please find my contribution for the Thursday meeting
> here.
>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HardProbes_Aug10_Diptanil.pdf
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 5:31 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hello QM2023 hard probes presenters,
>>
>> We would like to hear your status at this week's hp-pwg meeting.
>> Please prepare your slides and update us.
>> Even if you don't have any results yet, that is fine, but update us
>> where we are now.
>> The deadlines are approaching fast.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Nihar for conveners
>>
>> On 2023-08-08 13:36, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> We will have our HP-pwg meeting this Thursday (10th Aug) at 10 AM
>> EDT.
>>> Let us know please if you want to present and discuss your
>> analysis or
>>> any other business.
>>> Send your presentation slides a few hrs before the meeting,
>> please.
>>>
>>> As QM2023 deadline is approaching, we request all PAs to update us
>>> your status for your presentation/poster.
>>>
>>> HP working group weekly meeting info:
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/Hard-Probes/Weekly-HP-PWG-meeting
>>>
>>> Join ZoomGov Meeting
>>>
>>
> https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09
>> [1]
>>>
>>> Meeting ID: 161 141 9615
>>> Passcode: 744968
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Isaac, Yi and Nihar
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> --
>
> ~ Neil
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1611419615?pwd=VW1hNm43ZDd5d2EvK2R4aEJsQ2ZNZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!ADfIuWOzpTp3RDLfq0dNzkHstups3y_JF1uZgd6ByIdzlT4vcCM0RPFhhe1fNmbVCOvB1xDI-x_8AbwUu8HYzBiDdA$
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

--

~ Neil