STAR HardProbes PWG

["Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>]

Hi Nihar,

I have some comments on your responses, below. Note that all line numbers and 
figures refer to the previous version.

Thanks!
Isaac

170. I'm confused by this response. You're saying that somehow mixed events 
are improving the combinatorial jet yield? My understanding is that ME 
corrects *for* the contribution of combinatorial yield in the overall 
distribution. Please elucidate.

192. I disagree that the additional phrase "deconvolution of detector 
effects" would be unhelpful for a general reader, but it is a small point so 
it's your choice.

230. Ah, thank you for doing this study and putting my concerns to rest. I 
agree with you that the effect is small.

233. I'm satisfied with this rewording. Thanks for adding this -- I think 
it's a nice clarification.

328. Sorry for being dense, but I'm still not understanding your comment 
here. Do you mean the intention was to say there is a) negligible (/no) 
enhancement, *and* b) some non-zero suppression? If so, I think it should be 
modified in the text because I don't think this is how most people would read 
that. Why not "...exhibiting a striking yield enhancement at large deflection 
angle for large-radius jets, and suppression for small-radius jets."? Please 
let me know if I'm way off-base.

Analysis Note, Fig. 14. Thanks for addressing this point.

Analysis Note, Fig. 23. I disagree. The approach I am familiar with is to 
judge the closure test on its own terms, with statistical uncertainties on 
the ratio. When the ratio is consistent within the standard error, this is 
'good' closure. Of course the edges will always be fuzzy, but that is also 
true of your approach which uses the systematics as the benchmark -- e.g. is 
0.1% outside of the systematic uncertainty 'bad'? 1%? ... The only thing that 
has changed is that the benchmark is now the systematic rather than the 
statistical uncertainty, so it is not true that it is the "only quantitative 
standard". You say that "Given the finite statistics of the data, which is 
mimicked in this test, some deviation from unity must occur", but that is 
precisely what the statistical uncertainty should cover, and in addition the 
non-closure here is in bins with good statistics. I'm still not convinced 
that this is the proper approach. If you have a reference which demonstrates 
the argument, I think that would be very helpful for me.

Analysis Note, Fig. 27. Thanks for addressing this point with the addition to 
Fig. 3 and Sec. 3.13 of the analysis note. I do share Rongrong's remaining 
confusion being discussed in the email list about the values obtained in the 
plot (Fig. 28) and the effect of low-yield bins on the comparisons, although 
I guess this can be addressed in the GPC.

> On Jun 24, 2024, at 14:08, Ma, Rongrong via Star-hp-l 
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hello Nihar
>
> Thanks for adding Sec. 3.14. However, it is not clear to me why the limit 
> (upper vs. lower) would change depending on whether the recoil jet yield in 
> pp is larger or smaller than that in AA. I_AA is defined as Y_AA/Y_pp. As 
> along as Y_pp is an upper limit, I think I_AA should be the lower limit no 
> matter if it is larger or smaller than 1. Maybe I am missing something? 
> Also, I feel the way you calculate the 95% CL for I_AA probably needs some 
> updates. Taking the ratio of 95% upper limit for Y_pp to Y_AA+Err_AA would 
> not give you I_AA with 95% CL. I think one needs to use the central values 
> of Y_pp and Y_AA to obtain I_AA, and then calculate its 95% CL based on the 
> uncertainties. If this is not possible, you probably need some ToyMC to 
> convolute the probability distributions for Y_pp and Y_AA.
>
> For Fig. 28, I do not think the last bin matters since its yield is very 
> very small. In any case, I am interested in your checks.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best
> Rongrong
>
>> On Jun 22, 2024, at 7:42 AM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Rongrong.
>>
>> I have included the discussion of IAA upper and lower limit calculation in 
>> Section 3.14.
>> Please have a look at the updated AN: 
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AcoplanarityAanalysisNote_V2.pdf
>>
>> I left Fig28 as it is because I calculated total yield by considering the 
>> last bin's mid point and by fitting the Y(dphi) for a consistency check. 
>> But I will check that calculation again during GPC discussion to update 
>> this fig, however I expect no big change).
>>
>> Thank you
>> Nihar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2024-06-21 23:46, Ma, Rongrong wrote:
>>> Hello Nihar
>>> I do not think the last bin would cause the different I_AA shown in
>>> Fig. 28, since its yield is very very small compared to other dphi
>>> bins. The other bins closer to pi dominate recoil jet yields in pp and
>>> AA, and thus I_AA.
>>> Yes, indeed we discussed about the upper and lower limits before.
>>> Sorry, I forgot about the details. From your response, do you mean
>>> "For upper limit case, we take upper bound AuAu and lower bound of pp
>>> in IAA calculation"? I could not find any details in the AN.
>>> THanks.
>>> Best
>>> Rongrong
>>>> On Jun 21, 2024, at 1:42 PM, Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l