Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-hp-l - Re: [Star-hp-l] Responses to comments to Upsilon states production in p+p 500 GeV paper

star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-hp-l] Responses to comments to Upsilon states production in p+p 500 GeV paper

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: Leszek Kosarzewski <leszek.kosarzewski AT gmail.com>
  • To: Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] Responses to comments to Upsilon states production in p+p 500 GeV paper
  • Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 13:52:42 -0400
Hi Barbara

I updated the paper draft and prepared responses to your comments to the paper.

Paper draft: drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Upsilon500_Paper_LK_v7.pdf

Responses to PWG comments to paper: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PWG_paper_responses_v6.pdf

Paper draft diff: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff_Upsilon500_Paper_LK_v7-6.pdf
Paper draft (previous version): drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Upsilon500_Paper_LK_v6.pdf

Please have a look. I will answer your followup comments to technical notes you wrote above in the next e-mail. I would like to move on to GPC as soon as possible and addressing the comments. If we need changes to the results or uncertainties it would be good to address them in a single step at a GPC stage as we discussed before.

Best regards, Leszek


śr., 25 paź 2023 o 08:27 Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hi Leszek,

thanks for the updated analysis note. In general, it looks good to me now.
I have a few follow-up questions and comments.


----- Comments to responses
- Figure 2.16: there is an "acceptance" in the electron efficiency, can you define it? Naively, I thought the electron efficiency should only be calculated inside the TPC acceptance. 
Response: The “acceptance x tracking efficiency” just reflects the idea that tracking also affects acceptance due to low-pT cut off etc. This efficiency is however calculated for electrons within |\eta|<1.
Do you require the eta cut for electrons in the numerator only, or both at the denominator and numerator levels ?
And I understand correctly from your note, you calculate the acceptance x efficiency for Upsilon |y| < 1 so this requirement is on both levels ?

- ... I remember Ziyue and others found that the n_sigma_e has some dependency on eta. Could you please also check it on your dataset?
check it on your dataset? 
Response: Done, there is very little dependence of nSigmaE vs. eta
Indeed, this effect is observed in many datasets. It looks that in your case the effect is not big, however it's hard to judge exactly due to too wide y-scale of your plot 2.15. Could you please zoom in the axis to e.g. -2,2 range. Please also do so for Fig. 2.16b. And Fig. 2.15 is not referred to in the AN text. 

- It's not explain how the 3% shift is taken into account and how the final unc. is estimated ? 
Response: This is estimated in a previous study and a 3% shift is observed in the ADC distribution.
I understand that the 3% shift is taken from the previous analysis. However, what I meant is how this 3% is then translated to your final systematic uncertainty of 8.7%. Do you shift distribution in MC, do you change your analysis cut etc. Please add more description in the text. Also, isn't this uncertainty pT dependent, why is it a global uncertainty ? E.g. in pp HFE analysis varying Adc by 3.5% resulted in large unc. near the threshold pT with decreasing trend towards higher pT, as one would expect. And since the HT trigger efficiency varies for different Upsilon states, I would expect that this sys. unc. will as well. 
Given that the difference in efficiency is not small between the rapidity bins which is in part due to the trigger efficiency, which then also may contribute to the observed deep in the cross section, I think careful checks on the trigger efficiency sys. unc. should be performed. 

- sec. 2.6.10 - Could you please provide more detail here. It's not clear to what exactly you refer from Ref. 3. 
Response: Done.
I don't see any changes in this section in the new version of the AN. It's still rather cryptic to me.
Also, in the paper this unc. is given as 1.7-3%, suggesting it is not one common global number. 
As it's a STAR note I also suggest to refer rather to the AN of a given paper (here and in other appropriate places), as for e.g. paper from Ref. 3 doesn't really include details of what you try to refer to. Otherwise, please explain relevant details in your note. 

- What is "Fit" in the tables. Is it signal extraction unc. ? Please make it more descriptive. 
Response: Fit means the systematic uncertainty related to signal extraction: fit vs. bin counting.
OK, but in the paper I would use "Signal extraction"

-----
- Sec. 2.6.9
It's not clear to me why the nSigmaE sys. unc. should be a global one. I would expect it to have dependence on pT, and possibly multiplicity. 
The common number here is rather due to the method used to estimate the sys. unc. You take unc. of your linear fit to the efficiency extracted from data.

And looking forward to your updated paper draft.

Cheers,
Barbara

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:40 PM Leszek Kosarzewski via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear All

I prepared responses to comments to technical notes for the paper "Studies of Upsilon states production vs. p_T, rapidity and charged particle multiplicity in p+p collisions at \sqrt{s}=500 GeV". Thank you for putting so much effort. I think this ensured a good quality of the analysis.


Responses: 
Technical notes:
Diff:
Previous version:

Please have a look. I will now update the paper draft and hope to continue with GPC soon if accepted.

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

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page