STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Nihar,

After our conversation offline, we are on the same page about the -DeltapT plot and how to present the results. As for the comment about the <pT> scaling, I updated the slides to address this (uploaded, still called “v2”). This plot was made by Andrew, with (as far as I understand) Pythia8 Detroit Tune for the STAR results, Pythia8 Monash for the ALICE results, and an exponential between bin edges for the CMS results. So in the figure I just said “<pT,jet> from models” which should encompass them all. 

Thanks,

Isaac

On Nov 27, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Isaac,

Thank you for implementing my comments. Please find my reply inline.
With these, I sign off.

Best
Nihar
On 2023-11-27 15:59, Mooney, Isaac wrote:

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'.

Ok, then you must have practiced to finish in it.

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.

Now, it looks good. And thank you for your clarification.

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.

Ok, I got it now. I misunderstood it.

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.

Then I would suggest to add "<p_T,jet> from PYTHIA" inside the figure and point this out while speaking.
Have all other experiments also done the same (from PYTHIA)?

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.

Thank you

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.

in STAR we observed inclusive jet RAA and Delta_pT-shift (two green markers in this fig) are independent of jet R (for 0.2 and 0.4), unlike semi-inclusive jet measurements at STAR and ALICE. This is important to highlight.
(STAR Aj measurement also shows jet R dependance of modification in the same line what semi-inclusive jet measurement shows in STAR, but as we are discussing here only Delta_pT-shift so need to mention it; you could add a short sentence to highlight this).
But it is up to you how you want to present your slides.

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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="https%3A%2F%2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov%2FSTAR%2Fnode%2F66065&data=05%7C01%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C2e9d0cc66ef84054f3b008dbefa64d57%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638367269771466208%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yRi2KR5mc6KSV%2FSk9AbIKZ4gNlgpXV7jm9dwGHIFRJo%3D&reserved=0
Deadline: 2023-10-07
---
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%7C2e9d0cc66ef84054f3b008dbefa64d57%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638367269771466208%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nasHzKSSVzOMF2AJkm7Qg6NRCT6sHVi9%2FqUnTu18sMk%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
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%7C2e9d0cc66ef84054f3b008dbefa64d57%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638367269771466208%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F0dk9SxuYkDPl6lkOkaBfM9RN9c3PnScLRe8DbJYE%2BM%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________
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%7C2e9d0cc66ef84054f3b008dbefa64d57%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638367269771466208%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F0dk9SxuYkDPl6lkOkaBfM9RN9c3PnScLRe8DbJYE%2BM%3D&reserved=0