STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Gabe,

Thanks a lot for the reply. I don't have any further comments on your paper draft and analysis note. 

Looking forward to seeing your new plots. I think we can move forward once they are updated. 

Regarding the "survivor bias", I think it is fine to use and I believe you already checked whether it has been used before. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 4:25 AM Gabe Dale-Gau <gdaleg2 AT uic.edu> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thank you for providing comments on my paper draft and analysis note. I am compiling a few more edits to my figures and analysis note and will update them soon. For now I have updated the text of my paper draft to reflect your comments. The new version is available at the same location as before. Please find specific responses below.

Sincerely,

Gabe

Paper draft:

  - General: references need to be in order, for example, [6] in L16, should be [2] and so on. 

 

This is an issue that arises when I use the recommended bibliography style from the PLB webpage. They say to use \bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv} in the latex document. However, I have found this causes many issues with the references. For now I have changed to \bibliographystyle{unsrt}, which seems to clear up the issue. I will look into this further. I am unsure why PLB requires this strange and seemingly non-functional style option.

 

  - L45: Section 3 is results and Section 4 is conclusions. 

 

Updated.

 

  - L46- L51: I would suggest removing this part, or put this in the abstract. It is a bit strange (to me) to summarize your results in the introduction part. 

 

I added this in response to one of Nihar’s comments from last week: “At end of introduction, you need to include one para about outline on each sections.” Updated it so that it does not explicitly describe conclusions.

 

 

  - L52: You never mention centrality selection except in the introduction, please include this information in this section. 

 

Added in both this section and introduction.

 

  - L55: I would mention TPC first, rather than TOF. 

 

Done.

 

  - L57: add reference for anti-kt

 

I had this reference at the end of the sentence, but moved it so that it is immediately following the mention of anti-kT

 

  - L60: it would be good to define "eta" before, probably you can mention the eta coverage of TPC and TOF (rephrase L61 - 62). 

 

Good point. Rephrased these sentences.

 

  - Figure 2 Caption: In-Jet --> in-jet 

 

Done

 

  - L103: an extra space in front of "where ..." 

 

Fixed.

 

 - Figure 2 (right): I would use different line styles for pion, proton, and kaon  in the plot. 

 

Will update in the next version of these plots.

 

 - L157, 160: gaussian --> Gaussian 

 

Updated capitalization for all uses of the word “Gaussian”

 

 - L151 - 164: It would be good to mention the size (give a range) of systematics. 

 

Added size of dominant systematics for the high and low pT regimes

 

 - L173: before it is submitted, please make sure the ALICE results are still preliminary. 

 

I will look into this. As far as I know they are still preliminary.

 

 - Figure 3: I would move the "title: p/pi" to the y-axis as the label and remove "ratio" there. 

 

I will update in the next iteration of the figures.

 

 - Figure 3: the marker style for the data points (cycles) can not match the ones in legend (squares). 

 

Good catch, I will add this to the next version of these figures.

 

 - Figure 3: you need to put more information here, like jet radius, centrality, pT^raw and pT^const cuts. Some of them are in the caption, but normally people will just cut/see the plot. 

 

Similar to other plot comments, I will update soon.

 

 - L188: any reference for "survivor bias"? 

 

I intended to use this as a metaphor to describe the collection of jets, with the second half of the sentence clarifying its use.  I am unsure if the term has been used in this context previously. I can rephrase this sentence if it is confusing.

 

 - General to the summary: referees might ask how about other jet radius and centrality regions, probably need to think about how to answer these questions. 

 - References: 1 - 6 all look strange: et al, A. A...? 

 

Similarly to your first comment, this is an issue that comes along with the recommended bib style from PLB. By altering the bibliography style I was able to clear it up.

 

Analysis note: 

 Please add the data information, which year, how many events, bad run list. And basic data QA plots. 

 

Isaac also mentioned this. I will gather and add these plots.

 

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 9:37 PM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Gabe,

Sorry for the delayed reply. I have some comments on the paper draft and analysis note for your consideration. 

Paper draft:

  - General: references need to be in order, for example, [6] in L16, should be [2] and so on. 

  - L45: Section 3 is results and Section 4 is conclusions. 

  - L46- L51: I would suggest removing this part, or put this in the abstract. It is a bit strange (to me) to summarize your results in the introduction part. 

  - L52: You never mention centrality selection except in the introduction, please include this information in this section. 

  - L55: I would mention TPC first, rather than TOF. 

  - L57: add reference for anti-kt

  - L60: it would be good to define "eta" before, probably you can mention the eta coverage of TPC and TOF (rephrase L61 - 62). 

  - Figure 2 Caption: In-Jet --> in-jet 

  - L103: an extra space in front of "where ..." 

 - Figure 2 (right): I would use different line styles for pion, proton, and kaon  in the plot. 

 - L157, 160: gaussian --> Gaussian 

 - L151 - 164: It would be good to mention the size (give a range) of systematics. 

 - L173: before it is submitted, please make sure the ALICE results are still preliminary. 

 - Figure 3: I would move the "title: p/pi" to the y-axis as the label and remove "ratio" there. 

 - Figure 3: the marker style for the data points (cycles) can not match the ones in legend (squares). 

 - Figure 3: you need to put more information here, like jet radius, centrality, pT^raw and pT^const cuts. Some of them are in the caption, but normally people will just cut/see the plot. 

 - L188: any reference for "survivor bias"? 

 - General to the summary: referees might ask how about other jet radius and centrality regions, probably need to think about how to answer these questions. 

 - References: 1 - 6 all look strange: et al, A. A...? 

Analysis note: 

 Please add the data information, which year, how many events, bad run list. And basic data QA plots. 

  

Cheers,

Yi

On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 7:05 AM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 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

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

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

_______________________________________________
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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="https%3A%2F%2Flists.bnl.gov%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstar-hp-l&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C67b0f8b5ecb64a864abf08dca6d29cbf%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638568670747100782%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TAWhk%2BLqE6ynj7lGRkm15d8Ujvhx%2BMLIox%2FnjO4YKTk%3D&reserved=0