star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] Requesting GPC formation

From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
To: star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Cc: "Evdokimov, Olga" <evdolga AT uic.edu>
Subject: Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] Requesting GPC formation
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 22:06:04 +0530

Hello Gabe,

Thank you for implementing my comments and answering my questions.
On my last comment, after reading your reply I don't agree with your explanation mentioning this as "in jet measurement". But I will leave this to GPC discussion and hopefully this will/should be raised during GPC discussion. Besides, I find your paper needs some places fine tuning, but that can be done during GPC discussion.

I will update the analysis note in the next few days, thought it was
worth sending the new paper version now as you had more substantial
comments there.

Once you circulate updated analysis note, I will sign off.

Best
Nihar

On 2024-07-31 03:33, Gabe Dale-Gau wrote:

Dear Nihar,

Thank you for your comments. I have updated the paper draft
accordingly and uploaded the new version in the same location as
before. Please find individual comment responses below.

I will update the analysis note in the next few days, thought it was
worth sending the new paper version now as you had more substantial
comments there.

Best,

Gabe

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.”

Please include some plots that they are from the same sample. Like
Multiplicity, pT, eta distributions from both ME and SE.

I will produce these plots and update the analysis note soon.

Comments on your paper draft:

- "2. Methods" -> Before this section, you need to introduce what the
STAR experiment, what detectors have been used, datasets for pp and
AuAu, if you have used any trigger events or MB, etc… and name this
"Experimental setup and datasets"
- Also discuss about centrality selection

Included a brief paragraph to this point as the first subsection under
the “Analysis Procedure”

- "2. Methods" -> I would suggest to change it to "Analysis procedure"
or something similar ; as this section contains many steps, you could
use "subsections" to separate out your steps for the easy reading for
readers. [Subsections are allowed in PLB] For example, i) PID of
proton
and pion, ii) Mixed event and same event correlations, iii) extraction
of yield ratio, and iv) Systematic uncertainty , etc. [you can change
the name as you like]

Changed the title and added subsection labels

- Njet -> N_{\rm jet} [make "jet" roman]

Done. Also applied this to all instances of N_{\rm{track}}

- Gev/c -> GeV/{\it c} [L159, 165, etc]

I believe all instances already have the italicized “c”.

- "3. Results & Discussion" -> "3. Results and discussion"

Changed both here and for “Summary and Conclusions” to preserve
uniformity.

- L172: "… for inclusive p+p data …" -> "… for the inclusive
hadrons in
p+p collisions"

Done.

- L196: "Lowering this parameter introduces additional background that
must be evaluated and corrected." -> this sentence sounds like just
hanging without any continuation or prior information.

Changed "Lowering this parameter” to “Lowering the
$p^{\rm{const}}_{\rm{T}}$ minimum” to clarify the sentence.

- L197: "Different radii could also be studied to examine a larger
sample of jets, likely possessing a…" -> Not a clear sentence. What
is
"larger sample of jets"? "Possession" may not be an appropriate word
choice here.

Changed to “Larger radii could also be studied to increase the
sample size. However, this increase in number of jets would carry a
greater level of medium interaction.”

- L199: "A larger radius is often associated with a higher gluon jet
fraction, however at RHIC energies quark jets dominate, so this likely
is not a factor at play in STAR." -> Do you mean we don't observer
larger radius jet at STAR/RHIC? We observed jet R dependence of
suppression. Probably you want to say, quark jet dominates at RHIC
than
gluon jet. If so, Please correct this sentence in terms of q/g jet,
not
in terms of larger jet radius.

I removed this sentence for now to avoid confusion. I had intended to
include this point in anticipation of a comment I have often received
on the consideration of different radii – given that gluon jets
posses a wider profile than quark jets, as radius is increased the
sample can bias towards gluon. However, at this energy our sample is
almost entirely quark jets so this consideration is not actually
applicable.

_Overall, after reading this draft it seems like we have performed
this
measurement proton-pion ratio in jet using jet reconstruction. But in
reality, that is not the case. What we have done is we only use jet
axis
(from jet reconstruction) and then perform jet+hadron correlation. Is
not it? If yes, we need to write this manuscript accordingly.
For instance, L211: "a strong preference for pion over proton
production
for jets with anti-kT R=0.3,…" here this sentence reads like
proton-to-pion [need to correct this in your sentence] ratio inside
jets. Which is some extend true but not exactly correct. Do you agree?
If yes, please modify all places. Otherwise, please let me know.

We strongly disagree with this comment. We measure in-jet proton to
pion ratios, exactly as stated in the paper. It is not true that only
the jet-axis is used for our analysis -- getting an estimate on the
hard-scattered parton direction could have been done just by a leading
hadron. The main jet finder utility is to provide energy clustering
and thus factorize out (to any extent possible) dependence of jet FF,
providing a closer connection to parton energy. The jet-track part of
the analysis is relevant for the background subtraction. Any jet
substructure analysis (shapes, FF, mass, etc.) in AA collisions
employs (must employ!) some form of background subtraction, and
jet-track is one of the common means to handle it in multiple
_published_ works. Our jet energy scale and jet axis are defined by
full jet reconstruction using the now-traditional anti-kT algorithm.
We employ a 2-dimensional background subtraction method to accurately
capture the underlying event information beneath the jet. The signal
that remains is the true jet signal.

On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 9:37 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:

Hello Gabe,

Thank you for implementing and answering my comments.
Please find below my comments on your reply and also on your paper
draft.

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.”

Please include some plots that they are from the same sample. Like
Multiplicity, pT, eta distributions from both ME and SE.

Comments on your paper draft:

- "2. Methods" -> Before this section, you need to introduce what
the
STAR experiment, what detectors have been used, datasets for pp and
AuAu, if you have used any trigger events or MB, etc… and name
this
"Experimental setup and datasets"
- Also discuss about centrality selection

- "2. Methods" -> I would suggest to change it to "Analysis
procedure"
or something similar ; as this section contains many steps, you
could
use "subsections" to separate out your steps for the easy reading
for
readers. [Subsections are allowed in PLB] For example, i) PID of
proton
and pion, ii) Mixed event and same event correlations, iii)
extraction
of yield ratio, and iv) Systematic uncertainty , etc. [you can
change
the name as you like]

- Njet -> N_{\rm jet} [make "jet" roman]

- Gev/c -> GeV/{\it c} [L159, 165, etc]

- "3. Results & Discussion" -> "3. Results and discussion"

- L172: "… for inclusive p+p data …" -> "… for the inclusive
hadrons in
p+p collisions"

- L196: "Lowering this parameter introduces additional background
that
must be evaluated and corrected." -> this sentence sounds like just
hanging without any continuation or prior information.

- L197: "Different radii could also be studied to examine a larger
sample of jets, likely possessing a…" -> Not a clear sentence.
What is
"larger sample of jets"? "Possession" may not be an appropriate word

choice here.

- L199: "A larger radius is often associated with a higher gluon jet

fraction, however at RHIC energies quark jets dominate, so this
likely
is not a factor at play in STAR." -> Do you mean we don't observer
larger radius jet at STAR/RHIC? We observed jet R dependence of
suppression. Probably you want to say, quark jet dominates at RHIC
than
gluon jet. If so, Please correct this sentence in terms of q/g jet,
not
in terms of larger jet radius.

_Overall, after reading this draft it seems like we have performed
this
measurement proton-pion ratio in jet using jet reconstruction. But
in
reality, that is not the case. What we have done is we only use jet
axis
(from jet reconstruction) and then perform jet+hadron correlation.
Is
not it? If yes, we need to write this manuscript accordingly.
For instance, L211: "a strong preference for pion over proton
production
for jets with anti-kT R=0.3,…" here this sentence reads like
proton-to-pion [need to correct this in your sentence] ratio inside
jets. Which is some extend true but not exactly correct. Do you
agree?
If yes, please modify all places. Otherwise, please let me know.

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://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov%2FSTAR%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2FPtoPi_InJets.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638577742495420068%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BZGfcyZDZ9jYjq6vKqzX9RWvhD5bQ5FDBMtHIzmxDok%3D&reserved=0

[1]

[1] [1]

The paper proposal page with draft analysis note and paper

details

can be found here:

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&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638577742498857805%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3pRC6d7ib7fRqdhwhX0mojHfB62G3KXT9%2BklX6G1IzQ%3D&reserved=0

[2]

[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://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&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638577742498857805%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=psAQIJc2Z%2F05j3zLp1tVR2XXqcDOi4
oV3dtrgje4LqU%3D&reserved=0

y20yiNWltF%2FBwicG8%3D&reserved=0

[3]

[2]

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&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638577742498857805%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata
=cxVolPTVeiwSqiE00Z2Tm56KVgAiVwef0TErMyRUWMI%3D&reserved=0

=uQHVMT5jPGj7%2F%2FJjGXkbebXOzOcJJsaXhvp%2Fuj5Jfxs%3D&reserved=0

[4]

Links:
------
[1]

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*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638559297862307622*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C%26amp%3Bsdata%3DC6n0VRfUCCJI4AwoxVaNZ0Q6*2BsUZPkE0cWFid0q*2FzXg*3D%26amp%3Breserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpKL9opAPQ%24&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638577742498857805%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=q6jeb%2Fb2iLFfNoVMsXGr52j7gpu2ulP5i
TOPux%2B%2BBLg%3D&reserved=0

[3]

[2]

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*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638559297865744924*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C%26amp%3Bsdata%3DOVvGUWr2GGm3aZQFBzEgDPN8GPpA*2FQI9L7roD7nt4rw*3D%26amp%3Breserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpIN4BCXHA%24&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638577742498857805%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata
=yvU7F9acBXQKz6YFNZdS8J4JZTgXYOQGeLsEPW%2FcLNo%3D&reserved=0

[4]

[3]

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*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%26amp%3Bdata%3D05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638559297865744924*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj
oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C%26amp%3Bsd&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638577742498857805%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4oWvJcTmTvAZVE6EPzHNmSFmJsMSIB6miAjTofQmsaA%3D&reserved=0

ata=WqDwlYO*2Ft1cbTV*2BY5SJjT*2FeqXVy20yiNWltF*2FBwicG8*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKiUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpKq354kdw$

[4]

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*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%26amp%3Bdata%3D05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C6385592978659012
55*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638577742499014040%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5Df4HN6PR6bp7sOgGlLvteQBmJJ6QLkxGWKKVfDcac0%3D&reserved=0

CJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=uQHVMT5jPGj7*2F*2FJjGXkbebXOzOcJJsaXhvp*2Fuj5Jfxs*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKiolJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpIbAO2GrA$

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&data=05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638577742495420068*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=BZGfcyZDZ9jYjq6vKqzX9RWvhD5bQ5FDBMtHIzmxDok*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqIgonLOPZVo0ue-2r7EOp1mqgnfjBDan-4bHODPmEseub0W21pp7KkBmaUSL_UF4H7fv3RIn_vR3CzOiD69msA$
[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&data=05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638577742498857805*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=3pRC6d7ib7fRqdhwhX0mojHfB62G3KXT9*2BklX6G1IzQ*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqIgonLOPZVo0ue-2r7EOp1mqgnfjBDan-4bHODPmEseub0W21pp7KkBmaUSL_UF4H7fv3RIn_vR3CzOn3PTOAQ$
[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*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638559297862307622*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26amp*3Bsdata*3DC6n0VRfUCCJI4AwoxVaNZ0Q6*2BsUZPkE0cWFid0q*2FzXg*3D*26amp*3Breserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpKL9opAPQ*24&data=05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638577742498857805*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata
=q6jeb*2Fb2iLFfNoVMsXGr52j7gpu2ulP5iTOPux*2B*2BBLg*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKioqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqIgonLOPZVo0ue-2r7EOp1mqgnfjBDan-4bHODPmEseub0W21pp7KkBmaUSL_UF4H7fv3RIn_vR3CzOT49INbE$

[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*7C6ef0ea6154ad466fef6908dc9e4c2b7d*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638559297865744924*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C*26amp*3Bsdata*3DOVvGUWr2GGm3aZQFBzEgDPN8GPpA*2FQI9L7roD7nt4rw*3D*26amp*3Breserved*3D0__*3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpIN4BCXHA*24&data=05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638577742498857805*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL
CJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&sdata=yvU7F9acBXQKz6YFNZdS8J4JZTgXYOQGeLsEPW*2FcLNo*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKiolJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqIgonLOPZVo0ue-2r7EOp1mqgnfjBDan-4bHODPmEseub0W21pp7KkBmaUSL_UF4H7fv3RIn_vR3CzOlLnW4Cg$

Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] Requesting GPC formation, Nihar Sahoo, 08/07/2024
- Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] Requesting GPC formation, Gabe Dale-Gau, 08/08/2024
  - Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] Requesting GPC formation, Nihar Sahoo, 08/16/2024