STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Rongrong,

Please find my replies inline.

On 2024-06-21 19:03, Ma, Rongrong wrote:
> Hello Nihar
>
> Thanks for the numerical values. If I sum up the recoil jet yields for
> pp and AA, here is what I get.
>
> 1) pi0 trigger, R = 0.2, 10 < pT < 15 GeV/c
> Y_AA = 0.030
> Y_pp = 0.065 (the last bin with upper limit does not matter since its
> yield is so much smaller than the other three dphi bins)
> I_AA = Y_AA/Y_pp ~ 0.47
>
> 1) pi0 trigger, R = 0.2, 15 < pT < 20 GeV/c
> Y_AA = 0.012
> Y_pp = 0.063
> I_AA = Y_AA/Y_pp ~ 0.19
>
> These I_AA values are consistent with Fig. 3 in the paper, but not
> Fig. 28 in AN where you demonstrate the consistency. Could you double
> check the procedure for getting Fig. 28?
Thank you for this crosscheck.
I have calculated considering that last bin's central value (but we only 
show upper limit in fig.2) just to have a consistency check. That could 
be the reason for Fig.28.

> As I am looking at this in more detail, another question arises. For
> pi0+jet measurements in p+p collisions, you have upper limits for the
> dphi bin furthest to pi for both R = 0.2 and 0.5, which makes sense.
> However, you have upper limits for I_AA for R = 0.5, and lower limits
> for R = 0.2 jets. Why is this the case? How do you derive an upper
> limit on I_AA given the upper limit on Y_pp?

I remember, we had a discussion on this before if you recall.
But let me reiterate that to you here again.
For upper limit case, we take upper bound of pp and AuAu in IAA 
calculation.
similarly for lower bound, Lower limit of pp and AA.

Thank you
Nihar

P.S. Coming two weeks I will be traveling so I may be slow in replying.







> Thanks.
>
> Best
> Rongrong
>
> > On Jun 21, 2024, at 6:29 AM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hello Rongrong,
> >
> > Please find the data points here.
> > Upper bound of last bin is mentioned there separately.
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/nihar/acoplanarity-pp-data
> >
> > Thank you
> > Nihar
> >
> > On 2024-06-21 01:09, Ma, Rongrong wrote:
> > > 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