STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Gabe,

Thank you for preparing the paper draft and AN of this new analysis.

I have gone through your AN first and commented on your AN and only 
introduction of your paper draft.
I will go though rest of your paper draft once you address my comments 
in the AN.

Analysis Note:

L71: You need to show; how your Mixed event and the same event's 
multiplicity distributions are the same, or represent the same 
characteristic events sample. It is important to advocate your mixing 
captures the same characteristics of the same event.
L72:	The resulting distribution is normalized to unity at maximum. -> 
Please elaborate how do you normalize and mention "maximum" of what. In 
Fig.1, indicate where is that "maximum". As this is  important for this 
analysis, so it should be discussed extensively.

Section 2.2: Please elaborate how do you perform proton and pion 
identification within jet and Mixed event? You may have mentioned how do 
perform PID but not in the jet-hadron correlation and ME/UE, a detailed 
discussion will help us to understand the procedure. For instance, how 
do you preserve PID information while doing jet reco or ME or UE.
L103: "After subtraction of uncorrelated background, there still remains 
further contamination in our jet signal from correlated background." But 
you are doing PID measurement, then you need to mention how do you 
preserve PID information while subtracting uncorrelated background. That 
part is not clear in the AN.

I would suggest before section 2, please include a (sub)section just 
write steps that you followed in this analysis. Then details you go 
through in each section. As this is a new analysis, so a proper 
documentation is warranted.  Similar to your Section 3.1 (I like that 
steps you mentioned, it is easily conceivable)


Section3.1: In these steps, where and how do you select/perform PID. 
Please mention.

Fig.6: Why your Pseudo-embedding (pp + AuAu) peak heights are lowers 
than pp and AuAu peaks. What I am missing here.

Section3.2:
L155 - Randomly sample the nTrack distribution to choose a reasonable 
nTrack value for the mixed event.
-> You need to be carefully check your random sample of nTracks 
distribution should match with the same event's. Please show the plot of 
that comparison whether they are reasonable or not.

IN these steps, do you perform any PID selection?


___________Paper draft:

Abstract:
to measure in-jet particle ratios for -> to measure proton over pion 
yield ratio in-jet for [or you need to mention somewhere you report 
proton to pion ratio, no mentioned in the asbtract]

Introduction:
L3: an exotic phase of matter, Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP),-> need to 
mention what is that exotic phase like hot and dense QCD matter
L8-12:Some key signatures of QGP observed through such comparisons … -> 
you need to provide reference to these observations both RHIC and LHC's.
However, I don't think you have listed all key QGP signatures. And 
"enhancement of relative baryon to meson production" is not a key 
signature of QGP it only indicates coalescence mechanism. If you agree, 
please rephrase your sentence.


L28: what extent the hard-scattered parton traversing the medium 
contributes to in-medium coalescence … -> if I understand correctly, it 
say hard-scattered parton contribute to coalescence mechanism in the 
medium. But I think we want to study whether coalescence mechanism is 
important in jets originating from hard-scattered parton traversing in 
the QGP and also in vacuum.
Please correct me if I have mistaken.

ANd "if the QGP presence modifies the particle composition of the jet 
shower." -> It is ok.

At end of introduction, you need to include one para about outline on 
each sections.



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$