STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Dear Kaifeng,

Thanks a lot for the updated version and new replies. 

The replies look good to me, I only have some follow-up suggestions for your consideration, but none of them will delay to go to the next step. 

Analysis note: 

  1. Sec. 2.1: Do you have the nsigma_e plots for different p ranges compared to the embedding?

     Yes, please find the plots in this link:
     https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/nSigmaE_data_embedding.pdf

     ==> Could you please add these plots to the note? 

  2. Sec. 4.2: You mentioned you use pion to estimate TOF matching efficiency due to the limited statistics of pure electrons, is there any uncertainty associated with it? Naively I would think using pion to estimate muon makes sense since the masses are similar, but electrons are much lighter than pions, will it affect the matching efficiency? Any supporting arguments for using this method? If so, it would be good to add here.

      We estimated the tof matching efficiency uncertainties by changing the invariant mass cut for pure electron selection, and also the similar method has been used in previous dielectron analysis, for example: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/lowPt_dielectron_anaNote_v2_0.pdf
(PSN0684)

       ==> Could you please add this note as one of the reference or mention it in the note? 

  

Paper draft: the updated version looks very good to me. Unfortunately, I don't have any good suggestions for making stronger conclusions. I will keep thinking about it and I think GPC probably can also provide good suggestions. 

I am happy to push this to GPC now, and I will check the other convenors. If they are also fine with it, we will send the request of GPC formation to the PAC. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:32 PM kshen <kshen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Yi,

   Thanks for your nice comments and suggestions, please find our replies
in the follow link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Reply_Yi_v1.pdf

the updated paper draft version can be found in this link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_draft_54p5_Jpsi_v16.pdf

the updated analysis note version can be found in this link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysis_note_for_inclusive_Jpsi_production_in_AuAu_collisions_at_54_4_GeV_v6.pdf

a diff version of paper draft compared to the old one can be found in
this link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_draft_54p5_Jpsi_v16_diff_with_v14.pdf

if you have any more comments or suggestions, please kindly let us know,
thanks!

Best regards,
Kaifeng for APs



On 2023-11-11 17:37, Yi Yang wrote:
> Dear Kaifeng,
>
> Sorry for the delayed responses. I went through your nice analysis
> note and paper draft.
> In general, they are all well written, however, I have some questions
> on the analysis and some comments/suggestions on the paper draft for
> your consideration.
> Analysis note:
>    - General: some reference numbers are missing, for example L106,
> L256, L308, please check if all references are available. I might have
> missed some of them.
>    - Sec. 2.1: Do you have the nsigma_e plots for different p ranges
> compared to the embedding?
>    - L134 : (pT ? 1 GeV/c) --> (pT > 1 GeV/c)
>    - L154: Figure 37 --> Figure 6
>    - Sec. 4.2: You mentioned you use pion to estimate TOF matching
> efficiency due to the limited statistics of pure electrons, is there
> any uncertainty associated with it? Naively I would think using pion
> to estimate muon makes sense since the masses are similar, but
> electrons are much lighter than pions, will it affect the matching
> efficiency? Any supporting arguments for using this method? If so, it
> would be good to add here.
>    - Sec. 4.4: Left plot of Figure 24, the fit looks very bad. Are you
> using this fit function to estimate p dependent of n_sigma_e when you
> estimate the n_sigma_e uncertainty?
>
>  Paper draft:
>     - Title: I kind of understand why you didn't mention STAR in the
> title, but personally I would add STAR in the title so when people
> search or read the title they will get an immediate impression that
> this measurement is from STAR. But it is completely up to you and the
> GPC.
>    - L27: I would add more references for the "studied extensively
> over the past nearly thirty years" including the discovery, studies in
> ee, pp, and pA...
>    - L30: of 17,2 GeV --> of 17.2 GeV at SPS,   200 GeV --> 200 GeV
> (RHIC)
>    - L27 - 42: This paragraph reads a bit strange to me, you first
> mentioned the results from low energy and top RHIC energy, then you
> mentioned LHC in the end (L42). I would mention results from 17.2
> (SPS), 39, 62.4, 200 (STAR), 5020 (LHC) together and draw the short
> conclusion here.
>    - L39 and other places: I would just use "regeneration" instead of
> "(re)generation".
>    - L64 - 65: remove (17.2 GeV) and (200 GeV).
>    - L76: In this letter --> In this paper
>    - L89 - 87: This paragraph seems to appear out of the blue here, I
> would move this to where you introduce J/psi (L27)?
>    - L99: mention momentum is measured by TPC?
>    - Table 1: It is a bit difficult to read in the third column since
> you also have the momentum regions there. I would make it clearer.
>    - Figure 1: The bottom plot looks strange, you only fit a short
> range? And it would be good to see the contributions of  signal and
> the residual background separately and clearly.
>    - L120: J/psi candidates. -->  J/psi candidates in this analysis.
>    - L159: A third --> The third
>    - L163: tighter lower --> tighter and lower
>    - Figure 3: Caption: the bands around unity also include the
> uncertainty from <Ncoll>, right?
>    - L170 - 172: I would remove it since you mentioned a similar thing
> at L167. FIgure 1 would make more sense after you mention all the
> components (Like sign, same event,  Mixed-event background, ...)
>    - L177: you mentioned "detector simulation" here, but you introduce
> embedding at L200. I would introduce embedding before here.
>    - L206 - 214 and Figure 2: I would think these belong to the
> "results" as in your analysis note. I would move them to Sec. 3.
>    - L207: Define invariant yield here.
>    - L216: remove "evaluation based on embedding" since you will
> describe it later and you didn't say anything about other sources
> here.
>    - L232: I remember we have other published results also adding this
> 5% for tracking, right? If so, it would be great to add reference
> here. Just let them know you didn't add this randomly.
>    - L258 - 262: Please add the description of estimating the
> systematics from the pp reference using the world-wide experimental
> data and <N_coll> (the global uncertainty in Fig. 3 and 5).
>    - L263: It would be good to emphasize that "pT-integrated" is from
> pT > 0.2 GeV.
>    - L312 - 317: Remove "In order to facilitate... as well as at the
> different collision energies", just keep "The second moment ... as
> well as at the different collision energies".
>    - L324: (Fig. 5) --> in Fig. 5.
>    - Summary: this is a very nice analysis and the results are
> important, but the summary reads a bit weak? It would be good to
> emphasize the importance of this analysis.
>    - References: some symbols are messed up, for example [20] j/psi
> --> J/psi, [25] sNN --> sqrt(sNN) , [28] j/psi --> J/psi, [48] j/psi
> --> J/psi, [53] 200GeV --> 200 GeV, [54] j/psi --> J/psi, 200GeV -->
> 200 GeV, and [55] snn=5.02 tev --> sqrt(sNN) = 5.02 TeV.  Please
> carefully check all of them.
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:09 PM kshen <kshen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Yi，
>>
>> Thanks for your message, looking forward to your comments after
>> the
>> collaboration meeting.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kaifeng
>>
>> On 2023-10-19 09:02, Yi Yang wrote:
>>> Hi Kaifeng,
>>>
>>> I will provide my comments after the collaboration meeting.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Yi
>>>
>>> kshen <kshen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>於 2023年10月19日
>>> 週四，下午9:01寫道：
>>>
>>>> Dear Nihar, Yi and Isaac,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your nice comments, and in term of going for the
>>>> next
>>>> stage, we would like to recommend Jaroslav Bielcik or Petr
>> Chaloupka
>>>> as
>>>> GPC chairperson, Ashik Ikbal as GPC member at large, Wei Zhang as
>>>> GPC
>>>> member for code QA, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Kaifeng for PAs
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-10-16 00:26, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>>>>> Hello Kaifeng,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for implementing my comments. I sign off.
>>>>> Please wait for any comments from Yi and Isaac.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time, we will inform PAC to go for next stage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-10-14 01:59, kshen via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Nihar and HP conveners,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please also find a diff version of paper draft compared to
>>>> the old
>>>>>> version in this link, thanks:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_draft_54p5_Jpsi_v15_diff_with_v14.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Kaifeng
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-10-13 12:15, kshen via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Nihar and HP conveners,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your nice comments and suggestions, please find
>>>> our
>>>>>>> replies in this link:
>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Nihar_v1.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the updated paper draft can be found in this link:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_draft_54p5_Jpsi_v15.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the updated analysis note can be found in this link:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysis_note_for_inclusive_Jpsi_production_in_AuAu_collisions_at_54_4_GeV_v4.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if you and other conveners have any more comments or
>>>> suggestions,
>>>>>>> please kindly let us know, thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Kaifeng
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-09-25 02:49, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello Kaifeng,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please fine my comments on nicely written paper draft:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I. Introduction:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L4: "…(QGP), can be produced in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion
>>>> …" ->
>>>>>>>> instead of "can be produced" , better to be more affirmed
>> like
>>>>>>>> "…(QGP), is produced in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion …"
>>>> [Break this
>>>>>>>> sentence make it two for better reading]
>>>>>>>> L10: "heavy quarks " -> better to mention what is heavy
>> quarks
>>>> in
>>>>>>>> terms of temp. of the medium or QCD scale?
>>>>>>>> L13: "…deconfined hot medium." -> "…deconfined hot-dense
>>>> QCD medium.
>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>> [Many places "hot medium" is used through out the paper.,
>>>> would not
>>>>>>>> be good to use simply "QGP"? ]
>>>>>>>> "(re)generation" -> Why not directly use regeneration? [I
>>>> understand
>>>>>>>> that both can be possible] Or mention at least once.
>> Otherwise
>>>> it
>>>>>>>> reads awkward with a repetition.
>>>>>>>> L13: "…include dissociation due to …" -> "…include
>>>> dissociation of
>>>>>>>> quarkonia due to …"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Experiment and analysis:
>>>>>>>> L116-118: It would be good for reader to provide <Ncoll> and
>>>> <Npart>
>>>>>>>> values for centralities used in this analysis for 54.4 GeV [a
>>>> short
>>>>>>>> table probably]. Or If these numbers have been published in
>>>> other
>>>>>>>> analysis, please cite that STAR paper.
>>>>>>>> L131-132: "…with a mean of 0 and with of 1." -> Please
>>>> correct this.
>>>>>>>> L172: "where a clear J/ψ peak is seen." -> "where a clear
>> J/ψ
>>>> peak
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> seen at  M_ee = X GeV/c2." Better to mention where is that
>>>> peak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fig.1: Cosmetic comment:
>>>>>>>> Bin width of Sys uncertainty can be plotted as the same with
>>>> bin
>>>>>>>> width of stat uncertainty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L241-246: Too long sentence. Please split them for better
>>>> reading.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> General:  No discussion on Global and <TAA> uncertainty in
>> this
>>>>
>>>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. Results and discussion:
>>>>>>>> L256: You have already discussed about <Ncoll> in L116. No
>> need
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> repeat here.
>>>>>>>> L259-262: Probably we need to quote the inclusive J/psi
>>>> correction
>>>>>>>> that we get from data-driven method for 54.4 GeV.
>>>>>>>> L270: in our new measurement. -> in this measurement. Or in
>> the
>>>>>>>> current measurement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L292-294: "While comparison of two model calculations at 17.3
>>>> GeV,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> transport model cal- culation from the Tsinghua group seems
>> to
>>>>>>>> underestimate the experimental measurements at 17.3 GeV." ->
>>>> Would
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> be good to mention also about TAMU why it better predicts? Or
>>>>>>>> physics
>>>>>>>> in TAMU model?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L300: "..a flatter pT dependence of inclusive J/ψ RAA is
>> seen
>>>> at
>>>>>>>> √sNN
>>>>>>>> = 200 GeV compared to lower energies, …" -> I would argue
>> for
>>>> 54.4
>>>>>>>> GeV
>>>>>>>> the pT dependence is either similar with 200 GeV or some
>>>>>>>> pT-dependence
>>>>>>>> at low pT. In fact, 54 GeV is quite different trend compared
>>>> with
>>>>>>>> other lower energy. Something out of order. What do you
>> think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> General on Fig.5:
>>>>>>>> We need to discuss why do we see rising trend, at 39 and 62.4
>>>> GeV,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> a function pT, but not in the case of 54 GeV? Reader and
>>>> referee may
>>>>>>>> wonder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____On Analysis Note:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Please check if the Fig. Refs are corrected used. For
>>>> example:
>>>>>>>> L150: "…regions can be found in the Figure 37", this is a
>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>> on E/p ratio, suppose to be Fig.6. Please check also possible
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> cases at other place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-21 03:29, kshen via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear HP conveners,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a friendly reminder that the paper draft and
>>>> analysis
>>>>>>>>> note
>>>>>>>>> were sent out approximately one month ago, if you have any
>>>> comments
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> suggestions, please feel free to let us know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Kaifeng for PAs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-08-10 10:54, Kaifeng Shen via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear HPs,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The paper draft and analysis note for “Measurement of
>>>> inclusive
>>>>>>>>>> Jpsi production in Au+Au collisions at 54.4 at RHIC” are
>>>> ready for
>>>>>>>>>> pwg review. The associated documents can be found as
>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Webpage:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/kshen/jpsi-production-auau-collisions-544-gev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paper draft:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_draft_54p5_Jpsi_v14.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Analysis note:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysis_note_for_inclusive_Jpsi_production_in_AuAu_collisions_at_54_4_GeV_v2.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We would appreciate it if you could review the documents
>> and
>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> us with your valuable comments and suggestions!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Kaifeng for PAs
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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