Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-hp-l - Re: [Star-hp-l] Responses to comments to Upsilon states production in p+p 500 GeV paper

star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-hp-l] Responses to comments to Upsilon states production in p+p 500 GeV paper

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: Leszek Kosarzewski <leszek.kosarzewski AT gmail.com>
  • To: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: "Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>, STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] Responses to comments to Upsilon states production in p+p 500 GeV paper
  • Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:18:33 -0600
Hi Isaac and Yi

I have a question about this comment:

> 87. The difference in run years is a detail that I think should probably be left to the analysis note, as it would be confusing for the general reader.
Do you think I should remove the mention of 2009 data and just say "low luminosity data" or do you think I should omit mentioning a different DCA cut?

Best regards, Leszek

pon., 8 sty 2024 o 02:56 Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hi Leszek,

Just for the record, I think the current version is good and Isaac also covered my comments. 
So please implement them and we will move to the next stage.

Cheers,
Yi


On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 9:13 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:
Hi Leszek,

I’m very sorry for my long delay. I think the paper is really looking great at this stage, so I only have a handful of comments, none of which should take too long to implement, and I agree that we should move on to the GPC request.

Thanks for your patience,
Isaac

37. This description of the CEM is a bit vague (e.g. what does equality mean in this context -- equal probabilities? etc.)

65. The motivation for using the SMD wasn't made clear.

75. I understand what you mean, but for the general audience it might be confusing that you wrote that the TPC has acceptance |eta| < 1 in l. 64, and then say that you specifically select |eta| < 1.

87. The difference in run years is a detail that I think should probably be left to the analysis note, as it would be confusing for the general reader.

166. Should this really be 2.2%? From the table it looks like it should be 7.9% unless I'm reading it wrong.

Fig. 8. It might be a bit confusing that you say "fits to the world data...with STAR data included" (similarly in the text on l. 230: "...measured by STAR as well as data taken from a systematic study...") but then say on l. 232 that the "STAR data were not included in the fits". You should be specific about what STAR data were used/not used so it is clear that this isn't a contradiction.

Fig. 9. As far as I can tell, this figure is not mentioned in the body of the text. Even one sentence would be okay, just to say that for clarity we separate out the contributions from Fig. 8. But I'm not sure how necessary Fig. 9 is, unless I'm missing something.

On Dec 20, 2023, at 1:42 PM, Leszek Kosarzewski via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Barbara, Yi and Isaac

Did you have a chance to have a final reading of the paper, we talked about last week? It would be good if I could implement the comments before holidays. Please let me know.

Best regards, Leszek

pon., 11 gru 2023, 00:25 użytkownik Leszek Kosarzewski <leszek.kosarzewski AT gmail.com> napisał:
Hi Barbara, Yi and Isaac

I updated the plots and made minor updates to the text to reflect that.

Here's the paper draft with new plots:


Updated technical notes:

Please let me know if you have any further comments and let's move on to GPC request.

Best regards, Leszek


wt., 5 gru 2023 o 01:32 Leszek Kosarzewski <leszek.kosarzewski AT gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hi Barbara, Yi and Isaac

I updated the text of the paper for you to read:


I'm now recalculating the results to include the trigger efficiency uncertainty and will update the plots soon.

Best regards, Leszek

pt., 24 lis 2023 o 00:29 Leszek Kosarzewski <leszek.kosarzewski AT gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hi Barbara and Yi

Here are my responses to Barbara's additional comments to the notes:


I've also added responses to Yi's comments to the paper here:


I left a few of them to be updated soon, but the most should be there, so please have a look.

Best regards, Leszek


pon., 13 lis 2023 o 23:46 Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hi Leszek,

Thanks a lot for the replies and updated paper draft. 
I think you have replied to all my questions in the analysis note and I am fine with them. 

I have some suggestions/comments/questions on your paper draft: 
  - Abstract: I think it is a bit too long for me. You can consider only keeping the second paragraph in the abstract. 

 - Introduction: It would be better to mention all previous measurements from pp or pp(bar) collisions at different energies, and give a short summary on the current understanding/comparison between measurements and predictions. 
 - L37: add reference for the "pQCD framework". 
 - L42: "democracy" sounds a bit new to me, any other paper uses this term to describe the CEM? 
 - L45: "event charged particle multiplicity" --> "charged particle multiplicity"  ? 
 - L46: N_ch --> (N_ch)
 - L53: CMS experiment --> the CMS experiment 
 - L55: you only mention normalized multiplicity dependence of Upsilon and cross selection ratios. but you actually also report the cross 
sections vs pT and y. 
 - L56: It would be good to mention the results are done using dielectron channel here (or mentioned in the beginning of the next section). 

 - Experimental setup and data taking: I would introduce embedding here. One paragraph for one section is a bit strange, you can consider merging it with the data analysis part.  
 - L59: I don't think 156 M events is an important number in this paper, you can consider removing it. 
 - L59: an integrated luminosity 
 - L66: Add SMD description here, you mentioned later. 
 - L71: Upsilon reconstruction --> The $\Upsilon$ reconstruction   (there are many places you use "Upsilon", instead of "$\Upsilon$. Need to be consistent.) 
 - L71- 72: Remove B_ee^Upsilon (nS) 
 - L73: we require at least 20 points --> at least 20 points are required 
 - L77; Don't use "nFitPrs/nFitPtMax" and other jargons from STAR in the paper 
 - L76: N_ch --> , N_ch, 
 - L82: with a few differences -->, except, xxxx, xxx, and xxx
 - L83: Don't use "nFitPTs", unless you define it first. 
 - L86: Remove "TofMult". 
 - L86 - L88: I would think this detail belongs to the analysis note, mentioning here probably will raise confusion and unnecessary questions? 
 - L92: dE/dx --> dE/dx|_meas.  (Same for Eq. (1)). 
 - L93: contamination from pion --> the contamination from pion 
 - L95: Remove "thus forming a cluster"
 - L102: Define E_TOW first. 
 - L103: The ordering of this section is a bit strange, you mentioned Eclu/p in the beginning and jumped to R_SMD, then came back to Eclu_p cut. Probably can reorganize it a bit. 
 - L103: E_CLU --> E_clu  (to be consistent) 
 - L106: Ref. 34 --> Put it as a footnote or just mention it in the main text, it is a bit strange to be a reference. 
 - L107: pT > 1 GeV/c --> pT > 1 GeV/c cut 
 - L109:  the Upsilon signal --> the $\Upsilon$ candidate, e+e- pairs, there are also...
 - L110: Remove "Unlike sign pairs ... residual background", it is repeating. 
 - L111: like sign , e+e+, e-e-, pairs --> like sign pairs (e+e+ or e-e-) 
 - L112: Add a reference for "Drell-Yan contribution" is small. 
 - L112: Fig. 1 --> Figure 1
 - L116: The correlated background is determined by PYTHIA 8, and it should have an associated systematics on it, but I didn't see it in the systematic discussion. 
 - L120: Did you fix the delta_M between states by the PDG value? 
 - L121 - 125: you mentioned in your replies to the analysis note, now you are using fitted results as the central value and the difference between fitted results and bin counting as the systematics. Should it be updated here? 
  - Figure 1: blue dashed line --> blue dashed-dotted line
                   U(2S) (orange), U(3S) (purple) --> U(2S) (orange), and U(3S) (purple) 
                   Orange probably is not the best color to use here. 
  - Figure 2: The y-axis: Epsilon [1] --> what does [1] mean ?    $\Epsilon$ --> $\epslion$ or  $\valepsilon$ 
                    Right/Left --> (a)/(b) 
  - L127 - L130: A bit too much detail?  Belong to analysis note? 
  - L131: The Fig. 2(a) --> Figure 2(a) 
  - L133: Please define MC first 
  - L136: applied to only one , highest energy electron --> only applied to the highest energy electron 
  - L137: and U(3S) --> , and U(3S) 
  - L139: Upsilon ($\Upsilon$) 
  - L144: Move [17] to the end of this sentence. 
  - L147: respectively --> ,respectively 
  - L148: Don't use "TofMult". 
  - L145 - L151: A bit too much detail? Belong to analysis note? 
  - Table 1, 2, 3, 4: Can consider removing the "vertical lines" 
  - L157: PDF [?] --> fix the reference 
  - L163: TPC simulator --> the TPC simulator  (do you mean the embedding here?) 
  - L165: Add a reference for this 5% additional uncertainty (some published papers) 
  - L179: previously mentioned --> aforementioned 
  - L186: Upsilon --> $\Upsilon$

  - Results: 
  - A. Cross section --> $\Upsilon$ production cross sections and spectra 
  - L203: (gray line) --> I don't see the gray line. 
  - L207: Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b) respectively --> Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), respectively 
  - L208: Upsilon --> $\Upsilon$
  - Figure 5: I would separate them into 3 individual plots, one plot for one state. So you can remove (1S+2S+3S) and (2S+3S) from Fig. 5 (a). 
  - Figure 6:  I would separate them into 3 individual plots, one plot for one state.
                    CEM model --> the CEM model 
  - L221: The Fig. 6(b) --> Figure 6(b)
  - L227 Equation ?? --> Equation 3
  - Equation 3: sigma^inv  --> define it first 
 - L238 - 240: I understand you compare the STAR results to the world wide fits, it is important. But if our results are correct and the uncertainty is not large compared to others, should we perform a new fit and give new world-wide results on the ratios? I think it would be more important. 
 - Figure 8 (b): separate it into 3 plots.  
 - L259: The Fig. 9(b) --> Figure 9(b) 

- Summary: I would think stronger conclusions can be made from this nice analysis. 
- L267: inclusive --> the inclusive 
- L272: this sentence reads a bit strange (too many suggest), can you rephrase it? 
 

Cheers,
Yi




On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 1:52 AM Leszek Kosarzewski via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi Barbara

I updated the paper draft and prepared responses to your comments to the paper.

Paper draft: drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Upsilon500_Paper_LK_v7.pdf

Responses to PWG comments to paper: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PWG_paper_responses_v6.pdf

Paper draft diff: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff_Upsilon500_Paper_LK_v7-6.pdf
Paper draft (previous version): drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Upsilon500_Paper_LK_v6.pdf

Please have a look. I will answer your followup comments to technical notes you wrote above in the next e-mail. I would like to move on to GPC as soon as possible and addressing the comments. If we need changes to the results or uncertainties it would be good to address them in a single step at a GPC stage as we discussed before.

Best regards, Leszek


śr., 25 paź 2023 o 08:27 Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hi Leszek,

thanks for the updated analysis note. In general, it looks good to me now.
I have a few follow-up questions and comments.


----- Comments to responses
- Figure 2.16: there is an "acceptance" in the electron efficiency, can you define it? Naively, I thought the electron efficiency should only be calculated inside the TPC acceptance. 
Response: The “acceptance x tracking efficiency” just reflects the idea that tracking also affects acceptance due to low-pT cut off etc. This efficiency is however calculated for electrons within |\eta|<1.
Do you require the eta cut for electrons in the numerator only, or both at the denominator and numerator levels ?
And I understand correctly from your note, you calculate the acceptance x efficiency for Upsilon |y| < 1 so this requirement is on both levels ?

- ... I remember Ziyue and others found that the n_sigma_e has some dependency on eta. Could you please also check it on your dataset?
check it on your dataset? 
Response: Done, there is very little dependence of nSigmaE vs. eta
Indeed, this effect is observed in many datasets. It looks that in your case the effect is not big, however it's hard to judge exactly due to too wide y-scale of your plot 2.15. Could you please zoom in the axis to e.g. -2,2 range. Please also do so for Fig. 2.16b. And Fig. 2.15 is not referred to in the AN text. 

- It's not explain how the 3% shift is taken into account and how the final unc. is estimated ? 
Response: This is estimated in a previous study and a 3% shift is observed in the ADC distribution.
I understand that the 3% shift is taken from the previous analysis. However, what I meant is how this 3% is then translated to your final systematic uncertainty of 8.7%. Do you shift distribution in MC, do you change your analysis cut etc. Please add more description in the text. Also, isn't this uncertainty pT dependent, why is it a global uncertainty ? E.g. in pp HFE analysis varying Adc by 3.5% resulted in large unc. near the threshold pT with decreasing trend towards higher pT, as one would expect. And since the HT trigger efficiency varies for different Upsilon states, I would expect that this sys. unc. will as well. 
Given that the difference in efficiency is not small between the rapidity bins which is in part due to the trigger efficiency, which then also may contribute to the observed deep in the cross section, I think careful checks on the trigger efficiency sys. unc. should be performed. 

- sec. 2.6.10 - Could you please provide more detail here. It's not clear to what exactly you refer from Ref. 3. 
Response: Done.
I don't see any changes in this section in the new version of the AN. It's still rather cryptic to me.
Also, in the paper this unc. is given as 1.7-3%, suggesting it is not one common global number. 
As it's a STAR note I also suggest to refer rather to the AN of a given paper (here and in other appropriate places), as for e.g. paper from Ref. 3 doesn't really include details of what you try to refer to. Otherwise, please explain relevant details in your note. 

- What is "Fit" in the tables. Is it signal extraction unc. ? Please make it more descriptive. 
Response: Fit means the systematic uncertainty related to signal extraction: fit vs. bin counting.
OK, but in the paper I would use "Signal extraction"

-----
- Sec. 2.6.9
It's not clear to me why the nSigmaE sys. unc. should be a global one. I would expect it to have dependence on pT, and possibly multiplicity. 
The common number here is rather due to the method used to estimate the sys. unc. You take unc. of your linear fit to the efficiency extracted from data.

And looking forward to your updated paper draft.

Cheers,
Barbara

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:40 PM Leszek Kosarzewski via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear All

I prepared responses to comments to technical notes for the paper "Studies of Upsilon states production vs. p_T, rapidity and charged particle multiplicity in p+p collisions at \sqrt{s}=500 GeV". Thank you for putting so much effort. I think this ensured a good quality of the analysis.


Responses: 
Technical notes:
Diff:
Previous version:

Please have a look. I will now update the paper draft and hope to continue with GPC soon if accepted.

Best regards, Leszek
_______________________________________________
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


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page