STAR HardProbes PWG

["Ma, Rongrong" <marr AT bnl.gov>]

Hello Nihar

Thanks for the numbers. Could you also send out the recoil jet yields in pp 
and AA collisions for the four dphi bins between 2.2 and 3.14, as shown in 
Fig. 2 of the paper? Could you do the same for 10-15 GeV/c as well? Thanks. 

Best
Rongrong

> On Jun 20, 2024, at 2:59 PM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hello Rongrong,
> 
> As you mentioned this is a bit tricky to get exactly the same yield for two 
> cases due to dphi weights and also unequal total dphi sum from Fig.2.
> But I tried to estimate the yield for one case (15-20 GeV/c and R=0.2) and 
> calculate IAA.
> Here is the value 3.14 to 2.2 rad.
> 0.0033 (AA) /0.0109(pp) = 0.302 (IAA from Dphi) that is close to IAA(pT) 
> ~0.3.
> I have not considered uncertainty calculation.
> 
> Best
> Nihar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2024-06-20 02:38, Ma, Rongrong wrote:
>> Hello Nihar
>> Thanks for updating Fig. 3 in the paper.
>> As you mentioned, different dPhi bins contribute differently to the
>> integrated recoil jet yields and I_AA for 2.35 < dphi < 3.14. However,
>> according to Fig. 2 of the paper, recoil jet yield drops exponentially
>> with decreasing dphi, so the new bins with upper limits that you just
>> added are furthest to dphi = 3.14, and thus contribute the least. It
>> is not clear to me how they can pull the integrated I_AA so
>> significantly. If possible, I suggest to directly compare recoil jet
>> yields for the two cases (vs. pt or vs. dphi). This can avoid the
>> complicated weighted average of I_AA.
>> Best
>> Rongrong
>>> On Jun 19, 2024, at 12:07 PM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>> 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