STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Rongrong,

I was traveling so I could not get time to work on your comments and 
reply.

After thinking on your comments, I realized my lower limit is not 
correct for R=0.2 case.
And I agree with you. I recalculated and included a section 3.14 and a 
Fig.29 in AN to show the lower limit of IAA calculation.

With this, I updated also Fig.3 and 6 in the paper draft.
Please find the version 3 paper draft: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AcoplanarityPaper_v3.pdf

And analysis note version-3 with Sec 3.14 and Fig.29:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AcoplanarityAanalysisNote_V3.pdf

Please have a look.

> 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.
I will update this soon.

Best
Nihar

On 2024-06-24 23:38, Ma, Rongrong 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