STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Nihar,

Thanks for the really helpful edits. Please see my responses inline below. 
The new version is uploaded to the node as v2. Let me know if you have any 
more comments.

-Isaac

> On Nov 26, 2023, at 5:07 PM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hello Isaac,
>
> Thank you for sharing your DNP overview talk. It covers nicely all subject 
> on HotQCD STAR-jet physics.
> Have you checked the time duration of this talk?
        > It’s 35' + 10'.
>
> Besides, find my comments for your consideration.
>
>
> Slide15: "Observe also in ALICE: …but tension with models at high kT for 
> narrow splits" Is this true for STAR also? If not, please add a text there 
> about STAR observation.
        > The statement about the models’ agreement with STAR data is on the 
previous slide. I think it should be okay to flip to this slide and mention 
the ALICE model tension specifically, so I’ve left it as is, but let me know 
what you think about that.
> For ALICE plot: if you could show ln(R/DR) plot that would be more 
> informative. Then you can show one slice of ln(kT) plot.
> [just for your consideration]
        > I’ve changed it to the two panels of ln(R/DR) for two different kT 
selections (no plot of the ln(kT) for an R selection).
>
> Slide14:
> Would it be interesting to point it out why on slide15, "tension with 
> models at high kT for narrow splits" and on groomed mass case "MCs are in 
> good agreement."? Do we understand here why this is the case?
        > I’m not sure what you mean here. The MCs are in good agreement with 
either the log(kT) or mu results. It may have been a confusion related to how 
I worded the comment about ALICE, making it seem that both their results and 
the STAR results had tension with models. I added a period after “harder 
splits are wider” to make it clear the similarity is in the trends, not the 
agreement/disagreement with MCs. Let me know if it’s still not clear.
>
> Slide17: "Consistent with time evolution to non-perturbative regime;" -> is 
> not that "Consistent with time evolution to perturbative regime;" like 
> Altarelli-Parisi evolution Eq. That is pQCD at least 1st splitting?
        > I think there may be a misunderstanding here too. I meant that with 
time/split number, the splits are (not inconsistent with) undergoing an 
evolution from perturbative to non-perturbative. So yes the AP kernel 1/z 
behavior is seen for the first splits, but by the third it it’s roughly flat. 
Maybe I’m missing what you were getting at with your comment though.
>
> Slide19: "With conservative systematic uncertainties in biased pop., no 
> modification in AA observed"
> We know Tanmay is working on it and knowing this result was very last time 
> approved for QM23. I would prefer not to sell it as "no modification in 
> AA"; Could we be a bit silent at this moment? What do you think? Just 
> mentioning within uncertainty pp and AA are consistent. Period.
        > I thought the caveats in that bullet point were enough to make it 
clear I wasn’t trying to make much of a physics conclusion, but I’m fine with 
your suggestion, so I changed it (although this plot is the 
central-peripheral comparison, so I wrote “girth in peripheral and central 
collisions are consistent”.
>
> Slide21: What is "R_L" here?  "NP" -> non-perturbative or npQCD
        > R_L is the longest side of the polygon formed by the N particles in 
the ENC. So e.g. for EEEC it would be the longest side of the triangle formed 
by the three particle correlation. I’ve added a cartoon on the slide to make 
it clear. For the EEC, RL and DeltaR would be equivalent. The only reason I 
didn’t just make the ENC equation in DeltaR instead of RL is because it would 
no longer generalize to higher-point correlations. But hopefully it’s fine 
now with the cartoon.
>
> Slide23: Have we shown STAR EEC plot with x-axis "<p_T,jet>Delta_R" as STAR 
> preliminary? Probably I missed that.
>              What <p_T,jet> we use in our STAR plot? And is that corrected?
        > The <pT> on the x-axis is from Pythia, so the data hasn’t been 
updated. And it was shown this way at the CFNS workshop a few weeks ago.
>
> Slide29: lower right plot needs reference (the guy, who made this, will 
> feel good and need some citation :))
        > Added the reference. Sorry, I was planning to cite it I just needed 
to find where you first showed it.
> On this plot, you circled it, and you could also highlight why in inclusive 
> jet case we don't see jet R dependence unlike other cases?
        > I’m not sure what you mean here, since the inclusive jet case only 
extends to R = 0.4, and at 0.4 in the h+jet case, there is also consistency 
between R = 0.2 and 0.4. Are you referring instead to the AJ measurement 
where we did see a radius dependence where by 0.4 quenched energy is largely 
recovered? I think that could be an unnecessary complication to mention and 
explain.
> Slide39: left side plot needs reference
        >  Done.
>
> Slide40: "Possible sign of jet diffusion wake: enhanced baryon-to-meson 
> ratio in AA" -> After Reading this paper, what they mainly conclude because 
> of "via parton coalescence" not exactly diffusion wake. Enhancement in 
> b-to-m ratio should come from hadronization chemistry.
> So I would prefer to write "Possible sign of parton coalescence in jet". If 
> you agree.
        > The authors do say "unambiguous evidence for jet-induced medium 
excitations in heavy-ion collisions”, but I understand “wake” is a charged 
word, so I’m fine with changing it.
>
>
> Best
> Nihar
>
>
>
> On 2023-11-23 03:46, Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l wrote:
>> Hi Nihar, Yi, all,
>> No need to read this during the holiday for those in the US. This is a
>> draft of a talk for DNP. The invitation wasn’t through STC, but I
>> would still like it to be approved by STAR. Sorry it’s late, but for
>> what it's worth, the talk is on the last day of the conference (Dec.
>> 1st), and it’s already been through a bit of review here at Yale. (I
>> may still get some more comments, in which case I’ll let you know if
>> there is a new version).
>> Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving!
>> Isaac
>>> On Nov 23, 2023, at 4:34 AM, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l 
>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>> Isaac Mooney (isaac.mooney AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a 
>>> review,
>>> please have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/66065
>>> Deadline: 2023-10-07
>>> ---
>>> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
>>> webmaster@http://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://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l