STAR HardProbes PWG

[Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>]

Hi Isaac,

Thanks for the comments. I have implemented your suggestions and uploaded version 2 of the paper draft to the drupal page. (I didn't upload a new version of the analysis note since the changes are minor so far.) Please also find my response below. 

Best,

Youqi

 

7: "soft" is jargon that should probably in the abstract be replaced e.g. with "low-momentum".

fixed

 59: This definition is a bit off. The R and z should not have 'g' subscripts until they are the R and z of the prong just after the z > zcut criterion has been passed. You could fix it by saying "is removed until the SoftDrop condition is passed, resulting in zg = \frac{...}{...} > z_cut..." etc. But it might not be clear whether this is the criterion or there is some other "SoftDrop condition" in this wording. To be more explicit you can just say leave off the subscripts and otherwise not changing anything else, but adding "z and R describe the momentum imbalance and the opening angle of the prong, and are subscripted 'g' when that prong passes the SoftDrop condition and the procedure stops." or something similar.

fixed

80: It's a little odd to say that SD2 aims to reduce the collinear contributions from fragmentation, because SD2 in itself actually leaves explicitly the collinear contributions. It's only once the result from applying SD2 is subtracted from the result from SD1 that it ends up removing collinear contributions. Maybe "SD1 aims to reduce the wide-angle contributions from... while subtracting that which is left after applying SD2 also results in a reduction of collinear contributions from fragmentation."

fixed

 84: In this paragraph I think there needs to be a mention of the possibility of some contamination of this simple picture, e.g. of the radiation that is soft and wide-angle being from the early (partonic) stage, due to hadronization. You mention it in passing in l. 320, but this would be a good place to get out in front of it and address it so the reader isn't confused later.

added in L96 (in version 2) "Note that both the CollinearDrop and SoftDrop observables also could be sensitive to hadronization effects. However, simulations from Monte Carlo event generators show that the correlations between them are robust against such effects." 

91. "hard-soft dynamics" is jargon-y/unclear. Please rephrase.

rephrased to "Therefore, a simultaneous measurement of CollinearDrop jet and SoftDrop jet observables can help illustrate how the different stages of the parton shower are correlated"

107: Should be either "correlation between ... and ..." or "correlation of ... with ...".

fixed

117: There should be some mention that this is all at midrapidity.

added in L135 "Both the TPC and BEMC have a coverage of $|\eta| < 1$ and full azimuth."

134: A note should be made that it's only true that it's the whole track's pT if the tower ET doesn't go negative.

added in L147 "if the track \pT\ is greater than the tower $E_{\mathrm{T}}$, then the tower is removed completely."

151: I would bring back the SD1 and SD2 nomenclature here to make it consistent with the introduction to make it more clear.

fixed

161: If it ends up throughout the editing process that the paper is running a bit long, I would recommend removing all of the "defined in Eq. #" since it's all within the last page so it shouldn't be hard to find those definitions again if people already forgot them.

ok

173: You already cited MultiFold on l. 113.

removed

178: Remove "potentially".

removed

197: You've done a fantastic job describing the procedure of MultiFold in terms a physicist who is not familiar with it would understand.

:)

289: "due to the inability to..."

fixed

302: I would recommend labeling the subfigures (a) and (b) and parenthetically mentioning them here, so as someone looks at the figure, they're not trying for a minute to figure out what the difference between the two panels is.

Subcaption package seems incompatible with the lineno package. Perhaps we can discuss it in person to see how to resolve this.

303: "This figure excludes" since they're only excluded for the single figure, and are included in Fig. 2, which I would consider the same measurement.

fixed

325: "and groomed jet radius..."

fixed

330: "Lund Plane" should have a citation, and recommend rewording to "This figure is effectively a Lund Plane [cite] of the first groomed splitting."

added citation; I am not sure if this might introduce confusion, since for the Lund Plane the z-axis should be density, but for this fig 2 the z-axis is the collinear drop groomed mass, although the current wording might introduce the same confusion. Perhaps I should just not mention the Lund plane?

333: "is" -> "are"

fixed

341: "daughters"

fixed

354: Would be nice to be even more explicit here and hold the reader's hand a bit by saying "relatively late on average (or roughly at small Rg)".

fixed

356: "in Fig. 2"

fixed

387: "due to the fact that a selection..."

fixed

409: I would actually say "in N dimensions" since it's not that we were not allowed to present measurements in higher dimensionality -- we have 6D of corrected observables, we just chose not to show all of them.

fixed

410: "enters the" or "enters an". 

fixed

411-2: Can the big gap here be removed?

fixed

ANALYSIS NOTE:
Fig. 3: what are the cuts that go into "all cuts" that aren't present in the curve for "track cut, event pT cut, and JP2" that produce the largest difference between the purple and blue curves?

I think the largest difference would come from reco jet pT > 15 GeV. Reco M > 1 GeV probably also has a large effect. I also plan to repeat the analysis without the M > 1 GeV cut once the new embedding is ready.

Fig. 33: The text says it's from Herwig simulations, the caption says it's from Pythia8 simulations, and the figure itself says it's from Herwig simulations. Which is it? :)

It is from HERWIG. I have fixed the caption.

584. This might be something we want to mention in the paper itself. Let's discuss it this week.

ok

 

On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 8:24 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Youqi,

The paper and analysis note read very well. 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:

7: "soft" is jargon that should probably in the abstract be replaced e.g. with "low-momentum".

59: This definition is a bit off. The R and z should not have 'g' subscripts until they are the R and z of the prong just after the z > zcut criterion has been passed. You could fix it by saying "is removed until the SoftDrop condition is passed, resulting in zg = \frac{...}{...} > z_cut..." etc. But it might not be clear whether this is the criterion or there is some other "SoftDrop condition" in this wording. To be more explicit you can just say leave off the subscripts and otherwise not changing anything else, but adding "z and R describe the momentum imbalance and the opening angle of the prong, and are subscripted 'g' when that prong passes the SoftDrop condition and the procedure stops." or something similar.

80: It's a little odd to say that SD2 aims to reduce the collinear contributions from fragmentation, because SD2 in itself actually leaves explicitly the collinear contributions. It's only once the result from applying SD2 is subtracted from the result from SD1 that it ends up removing collinear contributions. Maybe "SD1 aims to reduce the wide-angle contributions from... while subtracting that which is left after applying SD2 also results in a reduction of collinear contributions from fragmentation."

84: In this paragraph I think there needs to be a mention of the possibility of some contamination of this simple picture, e.g. of the radiation that is soft and wide-angle being from the early (partonic) stage, due to hadronization. You mention it in passing in l. 320, but this would be a good place to get out in front of it and address it so the reader isn't confused later.

91. "hard-soft dynamics" is jargon-y/unclear. Please rephrase.

107: Should be either "correlation between ... and ..." or "correlation of ... with ...".

117: There should be some mention that this is all at midrapidity.

134: A note should be made that it's only true that it's the whole track's pT if the tower ET doesn't go negative.

151: I would bring back the SD1 and SD2 nomenclature here to make it consistent with the introduction to make it more clear.

161: If it ends up throughout the editing process that the paper is running a bit long, I would recommend removing all of the "defined in Eq. #" since it's all within the last page so it shouldn't be hard to find those definitions again if people already forgot them.

173: You already cited MultiFold on l. 113.

178: Remove "potentially".

197: You've done a fantastic job describing the procedure of MultiFold in terms a physicist who is not familiar with it would understand.

289: "due to the inability to..."

302: I would recommend labeling the subfigures (a) and (b) and parenthetically mentioning them here, so as someone looks at the figure, they're not trying for a minute to figure out what the difference between the two panels is.

303: "This figure excludes" since they're only excluded for the single figure, and are included in Fig. 2, which I would consider the same measurement.

325: "and groomed jet radius..."

330: "Lund Plane" should have a citation, and recommend rewording to "This figure is effectively a Lund Plane [cite] of the first groomed splitting."

333: "is" -> "are"

341: "daughters"

354: Would be nice to be even more explicit here and hold the reader's hand a bit by saying "relatively late on average (or roughly at small Rg)".

356: "in Fig. 2"

387: "due to the fact that a selection..."

409: I would actually say "in N dimensions" since it's not that we were not allowed to present measurements in higher dimensionality -- we have 6D of corrected observables, we just chose not to show all of them.

410: "enters the" or "enters an". 

411-2: Can the big gap here be removed?

ANALYSIS NOTE:

Fig. 3: what are the cuts that go into "all cuts" that aren't present in the curve for "track cut, event pT cut, and JP2" that produce the largest difference between the purple and blue curves?

Fig. 33: The text says it's from Herwig simulations, the caption says it's from Pythia8 simulations, and the figure itself says it's from Herwig simulations. Which is it? :)

584. This might be something we want to mention in the paper itself. Let's discuss it this week.

On Mar 22, 2024, at 14:03, Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks again for the comments and suggestions during the parallel session on Wednesday! Please see my updated slides for GPC formation request here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/star_collaboration_meeting_followup_032024.pdf

Again, here are my analysis note and paper draft: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysis_note_v1_1.pdf

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_v1.pdf

Best,

Youqi

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:35 AM Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw> wrote:

Ah… I messed up with your Rc analysis. 

Yes, this is good to go for the next step. I will look over your note and draft. I will try to provide my comments after the collaboration meeting. 

Cheers,

Yi

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Professor
Department of Physics / 

Director of Science Education Center

National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, 701 Taiwan
E-Mail: yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw
Tel: +886-6-2757575 ext.65237
Fax: +886-6-2747995
Group Web: http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/~yiyang
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>於 2024年3月14日 週四，下午10:02寫道：

Hi Yi,

I presented for a PWGC preview a year ago. See link here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/event/2023/03/17/STAR-PWGC-meeting

Best,

Youqi

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 9:56 AM Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw> wrote:

Hi Youqi,

Thanks a lot for the draft. Please correct me if my memory is bad, I think you didn't present the analysis in the PWGC preview, right?

If it is the case, the next step will be presenting this in the PWGC meeting on one of the Fridays (we will send the request when you are ready). 

Cheers,

Yi

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Professor
Department of Physics / 

Director of Science Education Center

National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, 701 Taiwan
E-Mail: yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw
Tel: +886-6-2757575 ext.65237
Fax: +886-6-2747995
Group Web: http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/~yiyang
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 6:07 AM Youqi Song via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi all,

Please find my paper draft and analysis note here and let me know if you have any comments or suggestions! I plan to request for GPC formation during the collaboration meeting. Here is the drupal page:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/youqi/Measurement-collinear-drop-jet-mass-and-its-correlation-groomed-jet-substructure-observab.

Best,

Youqi

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