STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Yi,

Thank you for your reply.

I am working on Rongrong's comment on CL and others. I will reply today 
or tomorrow.
Besides, on Isaac comment, we think the procedure we used for Closure 
test with sys uncertainty is appropriate for this analysis. We have 
replied.


> I have a concern about Delta_Phi weighting. You mentioned that you are
> still working on it and you want it to be discussed in GPC, but I
> don't think it is a good idea.
> PWG should at least review all the procedures and results before
> forming the GPC.

For this Delta_phi, we don't need any embedding. I have already worked 
on it but need 2-3 days to  calculate systematic uncertainty on 
Delphi_weights. And this uncertainty inclusion will not change any 
results and physics message. We consider that it is better to include 
those BDMPS effects on Delphi_weigts. As I was busy with other works, I 
could not finish this study yet.
This can be done before or during GPC formation.

Thank you
Nihar


On 2024-07-18 08:04, Yi Yang wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> Thanks a lot for the updated version. The paper draft looks in a good
> shape and I don't have any further comments.
> Regarding the AN, I saw many detailed discussions between you and
> Rongrong (and Isaac), many thanks to Rongrong, I think these
> discussions make the AN stronger.
> I have a concern about Delta_Phi weighting. You mentioned that you are
> still working on it and you want it to be discussed in GPC, but I
> don't think it is a good idea.
> PWG should at least review all the procedures and results before
> forming the GPC.
> Could you please let us know the status of this part? Are you waiting
> for a new embedding?
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 4:25 PM 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