STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Rongrong,

Thank you for pointing this.
A updated upper bound for R=0.2 of 15-20 GeV/c pi0+jet case is included 
in paper Fig.3. (It was missed in previous draft but now corrected)
This one I checked it before.
For pi0+jet 15-20 GeV/c R=0.2 case:
As this is a differential measurement in Delta phi, each dphi 
contributes differently.
The last bin which is reported with upper bound is greater than I_AA=0.3 
(see revised Fig.3), hence this bin contributes such that resultant 
integrated IAA(pTjet) value is around 0.3 (which is del_phi: 2.35 to 
3.14 rad).
The same scenario is for 10-15 GeV/c for R=0.2; where the upper bound is 
lower than 0.3, and that contributes to Integrated IAA(pTjet) value.

The updated paper draft (same v2): 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AcoplanarityPaper_v2.pdf

Best
Nihar


On 2024-06-19 03:35, Ma, Rongrong wrote:
> Hello Nihar
>
> Thanks a lot for addressing my comments. Those plots for consistency
> check in AN are very useful. However, it is not clear how you extract
> the I_AA values from dPhi differential measurement. Do you use the
> same dPhi range and same pp reference as in I_AA(pT) analysis? In the
> lower panel of Fig. 28, integrated I_AA(dphi) ~ 0.3 for pi0 triggers
> and recoil R = 0.2 jets of 15 - 20 GeV/c. However, in Fig. 3, bottom
> panel of the paper draft, I_AA values in all three dPhi bins are below
> 0.3. Why? The same question goes to pi0 trigger, recoil R = 0.2 jets
> of 10-15 GeV/c. The integrated I_AA value is about 0.3 in AN, but all
> three I_AA(dphi) values are above 0.4 in the paper draft.
>
> Best
> Rongrong
>
> > On Jun 18, 2024, at 4:25 AM, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l 
> > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Rongrong, Yi , and Isaac,
> >
> > Thank you for your constructive comments.
> >
> > We have worked on your comments. Please find our responses at one 
> > place:
> > (Rongrong, Yi, and Isaac's comments are in order)
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PWGComments_Acoplanarity_June16.pdf
> >
> > In this revised paper draft, Supplement material is included.
> > Revised paper draft 
> > (v2):https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AcoplanarityPaper_v2.pdf
> > Revised AN v2: 
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AcoplanarityAanalysisNote_V2_0.pdf
> >
> > We request HP-pwg converners to help us forming GPC.
> >
> > Best
> > Nihar for PAs( Derek, Saskia, Peter)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2024-05-06 12:55, Yi Yang wrote:
> > > Hi Nihar,
> > > Thanks a lot for the well-written draft and analysis note.
> > > I agree with Rongrong's comments, so won't repeat here. I have some
> > > minor ones for your consideration.
> > > Paper draft:
> > >  - L36 - 38: the hyphens look a bit strange to me, it should look
> > > like the one in L26.  (similar for L314 and 315)
> > >  - L41: high energy --> high-energy
> > >  - L58: pT, jet > 30 GeV/c
> > >  - L59: R=0.3 --> R = 0.3
> > >  - L116: Gev --> GeV
> > >  - Eq.(1) and (2): it should be d^2 N_jet and d^2 sigma
> > >  - L156: sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV --> sqrt(s_NN) = 200 GeV
> > >  - Figure 1: I would suggest to put the information in the right
> > > panel to the left panel as well, just in case someone cut the left
> > > panel only and there is no information on that.
> > >  - L229: What does "TBD" mean here? Will this affect the final
> > > physics conclusion?
> > >  - L245: Fig.2 --> Figure 2
> > > Question: (I probably asked it earlier) you show different behavior
> > > for R = 0.2 and 0.5, does it make sense to try other R numbers to see
> > > the actual R-dependence?
> > > Analysis note:
> > >  - L172: Figure 23 --> Figure 9?
> > >  - Question: you are using PYTHIA-8 in the embedding/simulation, but
> > > you used PYTHIA-6 for the comparison in the result. Why not use the
> > > same version of PYTHIA?
> > >  -  Don't you have the systematics from the unfolding iteration?
> > >  - Figure 23: It clearly shows the closure is not good between 2.5
> > > and 3, and you are using log in the ratio. Any systematics associated
> > > with it?
> > >  - L403, 404: there are "TBA"s, what does that mean?
> > >  - L435: The uncertainty on dPhi weights is "TBD"?
> > >  - Figure 26: do you have a similar plot for R = 0.2? What do the two
> > > "light blue" lines mean here?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Yi
> > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:16 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> > > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > > > Hello HP-pwg,
> > > > We have finalized STAR gamma+jet and pi0+jet acoplanarity paper
> > > > draft.
> > > > Paper draft, analysis Note, and paper webpage can be found below.
> > > > Please send your comment and feedback.
> > > > We request to form GPC.
> > > > Paper draft:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AcoplanarityPaper_v1.pdf
> > > > Analysis Note:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AcoplanarityAanalysisNote_V0_0.pdf
> > > > Paper webpage:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/nihar/Paper-webpage-Measurement-direct-photonjet-and-pi0jet-azimuthal-correlation-AuAu-and-pp-c
> > > > Thank you
> > > > PAs (Nihar, Derek, Saskia, and Peter)
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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