STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Dear Olga,

Thank you for your patience.
We will certainly push for GPC formation asap.

Best
Nihar

On 2024-07-18 20:32, Evdokimov, Olga wrote:
> Dear Nihar, All,
>
> Let me raise my concern for the timeline on this paper: it's been
> close to 2 months since the GPC formation request. It is our
> understanding that there are no remaining conceptual issues/questions
> for the analysis. Should polishing the wording of the paper draft
> delay it further at this stage? (with possible changes during the GPC
> review in mind) We are open to all the feedback and will incorporate
> your comments whenever it sent to us, but respectfully ask to help us
> move this paper forward.
>
> Best regards,
> Olga
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 8:54 AM
> To: Dale-Gau, Gabe <gdaleg2 AT uic.edu>
> Cc: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>; STAR HardProbes PWG
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw>; Evdokimov,
> Olga <evdolga AT uic.edu>
> Subject: Re: Requesting GPC formation
>
> CAUTION: External Sender
>
> Hello Gabe,
>
> Thank you replying my comments.
> I will go through and also send my comments on your paper draft by this 
> week.
>
> Best
> Nihar
>
> On 2024-07-10 01:04, Gabe Dale-Gau wrote:
> > Dear Nihar,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments. I have implemented them and updated the
> > version of both the analysis note and the paper draft on my drupal
> > page. Please find individual comment responses below.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Gabe
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Added: “Events used in the mixing process are pulled directly from the
> > sample used in signal. This ensures an identical multiplicity
> > distribution between signal and mixed event. Both are limited to
> > 0-10\% centrality.”
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Changed to “The resulting distribution is normalized to unity at
> > ME(0,0), where $ME(\Delta\eta,\Delta\phi)$ is the mixed event
> > distribution, as described in Eq.[2]. This normalization allows us to
> > correct for the pair-acceptance structure that emerges at larger
> > $\Delta\eta$ without impacting the small $\Delta\eta$ regime. To
> > implement the correction, the signal correlation is divided by the
> > mixed event distribution.” To clarify the details of this point.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Addressed this comment in the overview subsection you suggested adding
> > at the beginning of this section. The key here is that I keep PID
> > information associated with location information for every track, so
> > that I can fill all PID histograms alongside the correlation
> > histograms. One possible confusion here has to do with the jet
> > reonstruction. It is true that fastjet does not preserve PID
> > information, but the only information I use from the jet clustering
> > output is the jet axis. Once an axis is identified, I return to the
> > full event with PID information preserved to perform correlation and
> > save histograms in every parameter.
> >
> > 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 believe this is also addressed between the new overview subsection
> > and updates in the correlated background overview, Section 3.1. Let me
> > know if it is still unclear.
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > Added a full subsection titled “overview” at the beginning of the
> > analysis section, outlining all analysis steps in the same manner as
> > section 3.1.
> >
> > Section3.1: In these steps, where and how do you select/perform PID.
> > Please mention.
> >
> > Updated to directly name parameters used in this step.
> >
> > Fig.6: Why your Pseudo-embedding (pp + AuAu) peak heights are lowers
> > than pp and AuAu peaks. What I am missing here.
> >
> > The “pseudo-embedding” peaks shown here are a measure of correlated
> > background contribution, so they should be lower than the peaks from
> > either jet signal. The distributions extracted from pseudo-embedding
> > here do not represent the full combined embedded event, but rather
> > only the correlation with AuAu background. This is the purpose of
> > pseudo-embedding – to measure how much AuAu background is pulled into
> > the signal when running jet reconstruction.
> > If I were to create correlations with both the pp and AuAu event, the
> > peaks would be comparable to the full AuAu peaks. This could be a good
> > cross-check to show that the embedded events are realistic, but it is
> > not the purpose of the exercise.
> >
> > This is mentioned in section 3.1: “Using the post-embedding jet
> > location, $\eta^{embed}_{Jet}, \phi^{embed}_{Jet}$, perform
> > correlation with only the tracks from Au+Au, identically to how we
> > perform correlation in signal. Create histograms in relative location
> > and PID parameters; $\Delta\phi$, $\Delta\eta$, $n\sigma_{\pi}$, and
> > $m^{2}$.\\”
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Included this figure demonstrating that the distributions are
> > identical.
> >
> > IN these steps, do you perform any PID selection?
> >
> > The PID distributions are preserved and can be subtracted directly
> > from signal. All resulting PID from correlated background is the same
> > as PID in bulk.
> >
> > ___________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]
> >
> > Updated.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Added “QGP is novel as it is a hot and dense phase consisting of
> > deconfined quarks and gluons.”
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I believe one of Isaac’s comments addressed this point as well. I do
> > not mean the list to be exhaustive, but only to mention _some_ key
> > signatures specific to the setup of this paper. I would also argue
> > that the presence of coalescence mechanism is a key signature of QGP.
> > Coalescence This is what I mean to indicate with my mentioning of the
> > "enhancement of relative baryon to meson production". Rephrased this
> > sentence to add that clarification.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I believe the answer here that is it is both. With that sentence I am
> > trying to indicate that any modification to jet yield could be due to
> > QGP impact on the jet, or the presence of a wake generated by the hard
> > scattered parton traversing the medium. Unfortunately it is difficult
> > to decouple what contributions come from the original hard scattered
> > parton and what contributions are excited from the medium in the
> > scheme I have developed, so I leave this up to interpretation.
> >
> > And "if the QGP presence modifies the particle composition of the jet
> > shower." -> It is ok.
> >
> > Yes this is the other side of the point above.
> >
> > At end of introduction, you need to include one para about outline on
> > each sections.
> >
> > Added a paragraph to this effect.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:16 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drup/__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FuNYPXBkTjqY8cqByIFmXAAUARL1h8HDkxDCPnWq90SOJKJAmjp9f4egjQRahcFWopwCmYsRFKP-vOtU0_F2ct0$
> > al.star.bnl.gov%2FSTAR%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2FPtoPi_InJets.pdf&data=05%7C0
> > 2%7Cevdolga%40uic.edu%7C0609d92ea2af446c883208dca7310f79%7Ce202cd477a5
> > 64baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638569078832449868%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
> > sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
> > D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Gjph6wRlTch6Vjh95p1OPO0X13z9mnHKgt5zjPD7E54%3D&re
> > served=0
> > > [1] [1]
> > > > > > The paper proposal page with draft analysis note and paper
> > > details
> > > > > > can be found here:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drup/__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FuNYPXBkTjqY8cqByIFmXAAUARL1h8HDkxDCPnWq90SOJKJAmjp9f4egjQRahcFWopwCmYsRFKP-vOtU0_F2ct0$
> > al.star.bnl.gov%2FSTAR%2Fblog%2Fgdalegau%2FBaryon-Meson-Ratios-Jets-pp
> > -and-AuAu-Collisions-200-GeV&data=05%7C02%7Cevdolga%40uic.edu%7C0609d9
> > 2ea2af446c883208dca7310f79%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%
> > 7C638569078832459495%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQI
> > joiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JMw%2FoNJ
> > iiyaAG4OyH2Nvy8DrvktRKiySDmksJx4EymE%3D&reserved=0
> > > [2]
> > > > > > [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$
> y20yiNWltF%2FBwicG8%3D&reserved=0
> > > [3]
> > > > [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$
> =uQHVMT5jPGj7%2F%2FJjGXkbebXOzOcJJsaXhvp%2Fuj5Jfxs%3D&reserved=0
> > > [4]
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1]
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://urld/__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FuNYPXBkTjqY8cqByIFmXAAUARL1h8HDkxDCPnWq90SOJKJAmjp9f4egjQRahcFWopwCmYsRFKP-vOtUQT_1VzY$
> > efense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.c
> > om%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov*2FSTAR*2Fsystem*2Ffile
> > s*2FPtoPi_InJets.pdf%26amp%3Bdata%3D05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu
> > *7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd
> > *7C0*7C0*7C638559297862307622*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
> > MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C%26amp%
> > 3Bsdata%3DC6n0VRfUCCJI4AwoxVaNZ0Q6*2BsUZPkE0cWFid0q*2FzXg*3D%26amp%3Br
> > eserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3op
> > j_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9Ud
> > LpKL9opAPQ%24&data=05%7C02%7Cevdolga%40uic.edu%7C0609d92ea2af446c88320
> > 8dca7310f79%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C6385690788324
> > 76540%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB
> > TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SiR6XgJGQtSmnz3%2BgXKEBJ
> > RhyLPSEs2oyfhHMPH1uWg%3D&reserved=0
> > [2]
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://urld/__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FuNYPXBkTjqY8cqByIFmXAAUARL1h8HDkxDCPnWq90SOJKJAmjp9f4egjQRahcFWopwCmYsRFKP-vOtUQT_1VzY$
> > efense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.c
> > om%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov*2FSTAR*2Fblog*2Fgdaleg
> > au*2FBaryon-Meson-Ratios-Jets-pp-and-AuAu-Collisions-200-GeV%26amp%3Bd
> > ata%3D05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4
> > c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638559297865744924*
> > 7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik
> > 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C%26amp%3Bsdata%3DOVvGUWr2GGm3aZQFBzEg
> > DPN8GPpA*2FQI9L7roD7nt4rw*3D%26amp%3Breserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl
> > JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6
> > fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpIN4BCXHA%24&data=05%7C02%7Cevdol
> > ga%40uic.edu%7C0609d92ea2af446c883208dca7310f79%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3
> > e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638569078832481763%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
> > IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%
> > 7C%7C&sdata=FNO5U2CzMmRUULGqJvHOoXyD3hiOFO05LksZjUsODV0%3D&reserved=0
> > [3]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov*2FSTAR*2Fsystem*2Ffiles*2FPtoPi_InJets.pdf*26amp*3Bdata*3D05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7Ca9c3fa9ba1114066cfdb08dc9a2248da*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638554719558884006*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26amp*3Bsdata*3DfBdQae*2FxCfi5pXitit5Xhug*2B1bWH4uWHfI5km*2FQj81c*3D*26amp*3Breserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DajSTgyvE3p1HvINbDdyEMrMcxpoliNSni2OkSF8ajNZhBjwhz4__AgEh9GB8dVQjVC5Wt7ndtOkmh2XVABYRg*24&amp;data=05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638559297865744924*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&amp;sd
> ata=WqDwlYO*2Ft1cbTV*2BY5SJjT*2FeqXVy20yiNWltF*2FBwicG8*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKiUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpKq354kdw$
> > [4]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com*2F*3Furl*3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov*2FSTAR*2Fblog*2Fgdalegau*2FBaryon-Meson-Ratios-Jets-pp-and-AuAu-Collisions-200-GeV*26amp*3Bdata*3D05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7Ca9c3fa9ba1114066cfdb08dc9a2248da*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638554719558884006*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26amp*3Bsdata*3Drp8cuaeo43ILIPQv551yE*2BhhZFXBkiDNd2OpRCUk8Vc*3D*26amp*3Breserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DajSTgyvE3p1HvINbDdyEMrMcxpoliNSni2OkSF8ajNZhBjwhz4__AgEh9GB8dVQjVC5Wt7ndtOkmh2vYcHchA*24&amp;data=05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638559297865901255*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL
> CJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=uQHVMT5jPGj7*2F*2FJjGXkbebXOzOcJJsaXhvp*2Fuj5Jfxs*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKiolJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpIbAO2GrA$
>
> This email originated from outside the University of Illinois System.
> Use caution when replying, clicking links, or opening attachments. DO
> NOT reply to any requests asking you to reply from a personal account
> or SMS.