STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Gabe,

Thanks for the nice draft and analysis note. Sorry for my long delay in getting comments back to you. Overall I think the analysis is ready to move to GPC review, although I have some general comments about the structure of the paper and abstract (none are showstoppers). 

Thanks,

Isaac

Paper draft:

Title -- lowercase s, upright 'N' subscript (and elsewhere, e.g. end of introduction).

8. I would specify "Some key signatures" here so it's clear you don't mean this to be a comprehensive list.

38. You go very quickly into analysis techniques (jet-track correlation, etc.) without discussing the data: e.g. how/when the data were taken, what the selections are, etc. And it is okay not to go too in depth on the STAR subsystems you use, but there should then be links to the relevant NIM paper for each subsystem.

42. "radius"

57. Should it really be "all tracks in an event" or "each track in an event"? (I.e. how many tracks are paired with each jet axis for the ME?)

69. I don't think it will be clear to the reader how the position of that circular region is decided. -> "a circular region centered on the leading jet axis with a radius..." or similar.

91. Hmm maybe this is a subtle point, but I would prefer "introduced when reconstructing jets" or "which must be considered when studying reconstructed jets" or something. "introduced by the jetfinder" makes it seem like it's a flaw in anti-kT. Similar comment for l. 89.

94. "two"

98. It's up to you, but I would recommend something like "p+p\oplus Au+Au" rather than the parentheses.

134. "radius"

135. I'm not sure what you mean with this sentence. There would also be a selection on pseudorapidity, for example. By the way, speaking of that I'm not sure if you ever mention that this is at midrapidity, right?

142. In the proceedings from HP'23, it was "the hardness of fragmentation within the sample of jets." whereas now it's "...of the initial parton scattering within the sample of jets." To me the former is more correct and I would prefer if it were changed back. 

174. Math 'R' (also 178).

177. "show that for anti-kT..."

180. I think you're using the word "hint" here because you don't want to make too strong a conclusion about the actual physics, given the extension to be made to e.g. lower pTcons and the caveats e.g. the leading jet selection bias. But the data that you have don't show a hint, they show definitively that within precision, there is no baryon enhancement. So I would reframe slightly to actually make the physics connection (from baryon enhancement -> medium modification to particle composition; the enhancement being the observed figure, the modification to particle composition being the physics effect) and flip the logic from ~"evidence of no ___" to ~"no evidence of ___": "We see no evidence for medium modification to...". Then or before, caveats can be added to that statement as necessary.

186. It's not vital for now, but at some point the references will need a lot of work. Please take a look if you have some time.

General:

Some points that weren't discussed which I think could be were:

the quark vs. gluon aspect. I know you're not including any radius dependence, but it may be good to point out that given the kinematics at STAR and the pTcons selection, you probably have a decently pure quark-jet sample. Also, it would be nice if there were a bit of discussion on the reason for the discrepancy between the inclusive pp (AA) and in-jet pp (AA). You point to the ALICE reference, but I think more could be said here since it's such a salient feature of the plot.

It's also a bit light on physics conclusions/takeaways. In e.g. the summary & conclusions, I think it would be good to make one further step from what we observe to what it might mean. Of course, it's a tightrope walk between not making it clear to the reader what physics we're trying to learn from the study and speculating too much as an experimentalist. But I thought you did a good job in l. 27 in the introduction of laying out the physics motivation. You can kind of repeat that here for the people who skip to the conclusions first, but saying instead now that we've seen the results "This study addresses the open question of..., with some evidence that the ... is not modified by..." My comment on l. 180 actually also would address this somewhat, now that I think about it.

Systematics were also never mentioned. You don’t have to get too technical if you want to keep it streamlined, but something like “Systematics related to X, Y, and Z were considered, with X being leading in [insert kinematic range]…”, at minimum, really needs to be included. 

Analysis note:

The proton m^2 fit in the 3 < pT < 3.5 GeV range doesn't look very good, but I guess this is irrelevant because it's still low enough pT to be in the bin-counting region, right?

Thanks for including a clear explanation of the 3-track consideration for the background studies. I think that will help clear up the questions of anyone reading through it who didn't read the email chain earlier.

Although for the paper it is a choice to either include or not include some technical details, for the analysis note there are some things which really need to be included (e.g. run year, dataset, centrality definition, bad runs, all event, track, jet selections, any relevant QA plots, etc., etc., etc.). I would almost say the shorter your paper, the longer your analysis note should be :).

By the way, speaking of the centrality definition, did you and Tanmay manage to get the centrality definition for Run 14 that you've been using made an official part of RefMultCorr?

On May 24, 2024, at 15:04, Gabe Dale-Gau <gdaleg2 AT uic.edu> wrote:

Dear HP-Conveners,

We would like to request GPC formation for our paper Baryon-to-Meson Ratios in Jets from Au+Au and p+ p collisions at \sqrtS N N = 200 GeV. 

A first draft of the paper can be found here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PtoPi_InJets.pdf

The paper proposal page with draft analysis note and paper details can be found here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/gdalegau/Baryon-Meson-Ratios-Jets-pp-and-AuAu-Collisions-200-GeV

Our target journal is PLB.

Please let me know if you have any comments or if there is anything else I can provide to help move this paper forward.

Thanks!

Gabe