STAR HardProbes PWG

[Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>]

Hi Isaac,

Thank you for all the thoughtful comments, I will work on addressing them now and will update you when I have.

To answer the question:
Fig. 18: Why do the ratios in Fig. 18 look worse than in Fig. 6? Shouldn't matched correlations look better than all correlations?

I believe that this is due to a cancellation of effects that can be somewhat seen in figure 22, where at large angles both misses and fakes are found preferentially.  This means that when these effects are included in figure 6, at particle level we lose correlations there and pick them up at detector level.  Since the trend in the matches of fig 18 was a decrease at detector level, this brings the ratio back up closer to one.  I think this is interesting to highlight that although the overall distribution is fairly resilient to detector effects, the matches misses and fakes are all individually affected, so our correction is actually taking it through these steps.  You can also see that since misses increase but fakes decrease at low angles, the ratio at low angles is worse in figure 6 than figure 18.

Best,

Andrew

On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 8:21 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

The paper and analysis note are in great shape already. Please see below for some comments. Since I’m already very familiar with your analysis, they are mostly small things, e.g. grammar. With these edits implemented, I’m happy for the analysis to move to the next step.

Thanks,

Isaac

PAPER:

Abstract: The abstract is written as if the audience is experts within our subfield. Since the aim is PRL it should be rewritten to be more accessible to others.

6. Do you mean "of a parton scattered..."?

12. Remove "is presented".

25. Change to "governed by quantum chromodynamics" since it's not necessarily entirely perturbative.

27. I think we should be careful not to conflate the non-perturbative regime with the confinement scale. These are not in principle exactly the same thing. You do a good job of keeping them distinct in the sentence starting on l. 43.

41. Given the audience, I think it would be good to explicitly state here why in the past it wasn't a problem to discard non-perturbative radiation: it's less comparable to theoretical calculations.

88. "complement"

95. "x" should be defined here for a general audience.

107. "at RHIC in pp"

113. This feels more like something you would say in a talk than a paper. I would remove "is well equipped...excellent" and replace with "The STAR detector reconstructs charged tracks with its Time Projection Chamber (TPC)." Then pull up your sentence from 123. The BEMC allows for ..." I don't think you need "The TPC allows for accurate..." You'd also need to move the PID sentence to just before the "Energy deposits in the BEMC are..." sentence. 

121. "Particle PID" -> "Particle ID"; "not determined for this study"

123. "The BEMC measures energy deposits"

130. "zero mass energy"?

131. A note should be made that the ET of the tower isn't allowed to go negative in any case.

135. Missing unit (GeV).

141. "total overlapping BEMC"

154. This is a bit redundant with 145.

170. "resulting from kinematic selections."

188. Why do we need to subscript it "sample"?

203. This is the first time you mention unfolding, and it's not described until 209. And it would also be good to briefly explain conceptually what Bayesian unfolding is, and cite RooUnfold.

251. "both with"

320. Hadrons produced perturbatively?

359. This sentence is a bit of a throwaway here. You come back at the end to jet modification in the QGP -- I would combine this with that sentence somehow, so it's clear why you would want to study it in heavy-ion. Also it makes sense to put the outlook at the end, since you have another sentence after this that isn't outlook.

379. This is a sentence fragment.

ANALYSIS NOTE:

Pg. 7: It's a bit unclear here for a reader who isn't intimately familiar with the analysis what you mean by percent of missed/fake jets (e.g. what is the denominator). It would be good to write it out explicitly somewhere to avoid confusion.

Pg. 11: unfinished sentence to end the paragraph.

Fig. 15: It would be good to extend the y-axis a bit so the marker at x = 1 is visible (so people can see how good the resolution really is). Similar comment for 16 and 17.

Fig. 17: It might be good to normalize this figure such that the peak is at the same y-value as the peak in the previous figure so it's easier to see more quantitatively how much the left tail is due to this mass effect.

Fig. 18: Maybe I'm getting tired at the end of this session of editing, but why do the ratios in Fig. 18 look worse than in Fig. 6? Shouldn't matched correlations look better than all correlations?

Pg. 30/31: We don't often see such huge discrepancies with Pythia and Herwig in pp at STAR. It would be good to go into some detail about why you're confident this is a real effect, what it would imply, etc.

On Mar 11, 2024, at 17:03, Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello All,

Ahead of my presentation at the STAR collaboration meeting next week to request GPC formation for my paper measuring EECs in Run 12 pp data at sqrt(s) = 200GeV, I am sending my updated paper proposal page, which now includes an analysis note and paper draft.  Please let me know if you have any comments.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/atamis/Paper-Proposal-Measurment-Two-Point-Energy-Correlators-pp-Collisions-Sqrts-200-GeV

Best,

Andrew

--

Andrew Tamis

Yale University

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Department of Physics

andrew.tamis AT yale.edu

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l