STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Isaac,

Thank you for this clarification. It looks good now.
Good luck for your presentation.

Best
Nihar

On 2023-11-28 18:18, Mooney, Isaac wrote:
> 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
> > [1]
> > 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
> > [2]
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > [3]
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > [3]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/66065
> [2] http://www.star.bnl.gov/
> [3] https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l