STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Dear Kaifeng,

I got confirmations from other convenors to move forward this nice analysis to GPC. And Nihar kindly agreed to serve the PWG rep for you. 

I will send out the request today and Sooraj will ask you about the GPC members, so you can start to think the list:

Chair:  

    Member at large: 
    English QA: 
    Code QA:
    PA representative: 

    PWG representative: 

Cheers,

Yi

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:45 AM kshen <kshen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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