STAR HardProbes PWG

[kshen <kshen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear Yi,

    Thanks a lot for your nice comments, please find the updated 
analysis note in this link: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysis_note_for_inclusive_Jpsi_production_in_AuAu_collisions_at_54_4_GeV_v7.pdf


> 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?

done, this figure has been added to the new version of analysis 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?

done, I mentioned this analysis note (PSN0684) in the new version

> 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.

please feel free to let us know if you come up with any ideas later, we 
would be happy to consider them and update the paper draft, and I also 
agree that seeking input from GPC could be beneficial
> 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.

thanks a lot

Best regards,
Kaifeng for PAs



On 2023-12-04 02:55, Yi Yang wrote:
> 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