STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Gabe,

First of all, My apologies for my late reply. I am a bit busy.
And thank you for your patience.

From my side I need a few more days (probably 2-3) to go through your 
paper draft and I will send my comments asap.

Thank you
Nihar


On 2024-07-03 22:10, Gabe Dale-Gau wrote:
> HI Isaac,
>
> Thank you for these helpful comments. I have updated the paper draft
> to include all suggested changes and uploaded the new version at the
> same location I provided in this email chain.
> I am still working to update the analysis note, but thought I would
> respond for now with the paper draft changes.
> Please find individual comment responses below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gabe
>
> Paper draft:
>
> Title -- lowercase s, upright 'N' subscript (and elsewhere, e.g. end
> of introduction).
>
> Done.
>
> 8. I would specify "Some key signatures" here so it's clear you don't
> mean this to be a comprehensive list.
>
> Done.
>
> 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.
>
> Added TPC and ToF NIM papers to references. Cited in methods section.
>
> 42. "radius"
>
> Done.
>
> 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?)
>
> Changed to “each track in an event”. We see an average of 3 or 4
> tracks above 3 GeV in the Au+Au events considered. This number grows
> significantly with an adjusted pTconst minimum.
>
> 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.
>
> Good point, added this clarification.
>
> 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.
>
> I see what you mean. I changed the phrasing to “reconstructing
> jets” so it doesn’t seem aimed at the algorithm.
>
> 94. "two"
>
> Ah yes, another typo that evaded me
>
> 98. It's up to you, but I would recommend something like "p+p\oplus
> Au+Au" rather than the parentheses.
>
> Changed to \oplus for now, we can iterate further on this terminology
> if necessary.
>
> 134. "radius"
>
> Done.
>
> 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?
>
> Added a sentence on pseudorapidity selection at line 44 (beginning of
> methods).
>
> Also removed the “leading” terminology, opting instead to say
> “only the highest pT jet in each event is considered”
>
> 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.
>
> Changed back for now, I suspect this is a language point that will
> need to be changed again as “fragmentation” is a term that often
> refers to a specific observable that I do not report. I was trying to
> move away from such confusion with the re-phrase. Maybe I can define
> terminology earlier in the paper to clarify what is meant by
> fragmentation in this context.
>
> 174. Math 'R' (also 178).
>
> Done.
>
> 177. "show that for anti-kT..."
>
> Done.
>
> 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.
>
> Yeah, this is exactly why I was using the word “hint”. I’m still
> not fully certain how strong to make the physics interpretation
> statement, but we can work that out in GPC before submitting the
> paper. Changed to “no evidence of” for now, will add further
> framing moving forward.
>
> 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.
>
> Yeah, I noticed the format is all messed up. I will look into this and
> fix it. This is an issue that arose when I implemented the suggested
> bibliography style from the PLB website. The style is:
> \bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv}. When I compile using
> \bibliographystyle{plain}, I do not have this issue. Either I will see
> if the plain style is acceptable for submission, or work within my
> bibtex file to trick the references into looking better.
>
> 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.
>
>
> This is a good point. I will work on adding more interpretation for
> the p+p discrepancy.
>
> Added a note on quark/gluon fraction at line 183, will add a reference
> to back up this claim.
>
> 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.
>
> Added a paragraph at line 136 to cover the basics of systematic
> evaluation as suggested.
>
> 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?
>
> Yes, I will remake these figures excluding the proton fit, as it is
> not used in the analysis. This fit was only employed as an internal
> cross-check.
>
> 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 :).
>
> I will add these details to the Analysis note.
>
> 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?
>
> We met with the Centrality group a few times about 6 months ago on
> this point. They pointed us to the proper tools for building a
> centrality definition and we followed the procedure. We have a working
> definition that is very similar to the previous productions. However,
> I do not think we ever presented the final version to the centrality
> group for final approval. I will follow up with Tanmay to make sure we
> get this pushed through for approval.
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 6:05 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 [1]
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > [2]
> > >
> > > 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
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov*2FSTAR*2Fsystem*2Ffiles*2FPtoPi_InJets.pdf&amp;data=05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7Ca9c3fa9ba1114066cfdb08dc9a2248da*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638554719558884006*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=fBdQae*2FxCfi5pXitit5Xhug*2B1bWH4uWHfI5km*2FQj81c*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DajSTgyvE3p1HvINbDdyEMrMcxpoliNSni2OkSF8ajNZhBjwhz4__AgEh9GB8dVQjVC5Wt7ndtOkmh2XVABYRg$
> [2] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov*2FSTAR*2Fblog*2Fgdalegau*2FBaryon-Meson-Ratios-Jets-pp-and-AuAu-Collisions-200-GeV&amp;data=05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7Ca9c3fa9ba1114066cfdb08dc9a2248da*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638554719558884006*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=rp8cuaeo43ILIPQv551yE*2BhhZFXBkiDNd2OpRCUk8Vc*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DajSTgyvE3p1HvINbDdyEMrMcxpoliNSni2OkSF8ajNZhBjwhz4__AgEh9GB8dVQjVC5Wt7ndtOkmh2vYcHchA$