STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Yi and Isaac,

Thanks for the comments! I have uploaded version 4 of the paper draft on drupal. Please find my response below.

Best,

Youqi

Isaac's comment that wasn't implemented from last time:

ANALYSIS NOTE: 

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

fixed - added in L384-389 "The anti-correlation between the CollinearDrop groomed mass and \Rg\ is consistent with the angular ordering of the QCD parton shower, although jet substructure observables built using algorithmic procedures might be susceptible to reconstruction biases in certain segments of the observable phase-space."

 

Yi's comments:

 - L167: you mention since UE/IRS/pileup is not significant, so you can choose "less aggressive grooming criterion", but it seems to me still a bit random, why not 0.2 for z_cut,2 for example. Do you have any reason for choosing these two sets? I think I asked this many times, but I remember the answer is this is what you normally did?

Yes, (z_cut, beta) = (0.1, 0) is also the grooming criteria used in the previous STAR jet substructure analyses of Rg, zg and Mg. I have added a sentence in L169-170 (line number in version 4) mentioning that.

 The other question: will your conclusions change if we choose different sets? (How stable is it? Probably I missed in the draft).

The CollinearDrop mass will change with z_cut. I mentioned this in L332 and L390-393. I have the distributions with different z_cut from PYTHIA simulations in Fig 33 of my analysis note.

 - L277, 278: x% and y%  will be updated with new embedding, right? If so, it would be good to have some numbers here.    

 - L316, 317: ?%: Similar as above.  

fixed - I have put in the current values, and yes, they are to be updated with the new embedding. The fraction of 0 CollinearDrop groomed mass in the 20-30 pT range is much lower than what was reported in my DIS proceedings, because the embedding that I used for this iteration of analysis enabled pi0 decays.

General comments on Figures: I would suggest adding more descriptions in the caption. For example, Figure 1, it would be good to mention the green dashed line is PhythiaXXX and the band is NLL SCET... Figure 3, it would be good to mention what 1, 2, 3, 4 means (agaion) in the caption.

fixed - I have included more descriptions for all 3 figures.

Question: Are you planning to have another longer paper for this analysis? When I read the analysis note, I found many interesting details probably worth to be public. Just a thought. 

Currently there is no plan for a longer paper. We have brought up (more than a year ago) the possibility of having some of the other results shown in the appendix of this paper, but there was some disagreement from people in the working group. Perhaps we could have this discussion again when the paper is in GPC.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 10:32 PM Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw> wrote:

Hi Youqi,

Thanks a lot for the nice paper draft and analysis note. I am sorry it took me a bit of time to go through them. I think they are in very good shape and I have no problem letting this nice analysis move forward. 

I have some minor questions and suggestions for your consideration while we are forming the GPC:  

 - L167: you mention since UE/IRS/pileup is not significant, so you can choose "less aggressive grooming criterion", but it seems to me still a bit random, why not 0.2 for z_cut,2 for example. Do you have any reason for choosing these two sets? I think I asked this many times, but I remember the answer is this is what you normally did? The other question: will your conclusions change if we choose different sets? (How stable is it? Probably I missed in the draft).   

 - L277, 278: x% and y%  will be updated with new embedding, right? If so, it would be good to have some numbers here.    

 - L316, 317: ?%: Similar as above.  

General comments on Figures: I would suggest adding more descriptions in the caption. For example, Figure 1, it would be good to mention the green dashed line is PhythiaXXX and the band is NLL SCET... Figure 3, it would be good to mention what 1, 2, 3, 4 means (agaion) in the caption.

Question: Are you planning to have another longer paper for this analysis? When I read the analysis note, I found many interesting details probably worth to be public. Just a thought. 

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