STAR HardProbes PWG

[Gabe Dale-Gau <gdaleg2 AT uic.edu>]

Dear Nihar,

Thank you for your response and willingness to sign off. I have updated the analysis note to include the requested plots comparing raw distributions from Signal and Mixed Event. The updated version can be found in the same location as before: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AN_2023_GDG.pdf

Best,

Gabe

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 11:38 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213152644%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tzRY%2Bs7W8jY78rWUBpmbqyb%2B4010Y0uZKWTNpLX1MTM%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%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uaXBlcqFdJBlyv4ms3OamUKbPPKWl20poU4%2BhyGNc3g%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%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BZTwmMStyrxEvQWLPilmK5p%2BlMt5WH58dO1KVsI%2F%2Bkc%3D&reserved=0 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%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nlwFAyjDxR73zWR%2FfodaohFGZ4nCTdxcT2ivLHKJ1YY%3D&reserved=0 =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%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dXEW2NsPg5WtYCgpXI2GUhBChDIs%2FSK8Eg9l4CRAwu0%3D&reserved=0 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%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=45byqdSBqIFGcTwyH2R5QU0hsn4e63bHaRFld9K2GP4%3D&reserved=0 =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&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0FsD75A83I1XxgIud6JSy0qlYAndu1JhE%2FBn%2BISYqsM%3D&reserved=0 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&amp;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&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AQyz2niM%2FNQ5UrZ6MVixAomTRMQJ9DLu0foGxaVa38Y%3D&reserved=0 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&amp;sdata=uQHVMT5jPGj7*2F*2FJjGXkbebXOzOcJJsaXhvp*2Fuj5Jfxs*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKiolJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPL3opj_Bhjn3jH7itCIcJius23eIep5ahk3CIF6fgj72qTlYicJrMiS0BKvBgy2nxAErhVgi9UdLpIbAO2GrA$
>
>
> 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*7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638577742495420068*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C%26amp%3Bsdata%3DBZGfcyZDZ9jYjq6vKqzX9RWvhD5bQ5FDBMtHIzmxDok*3D%26amp%3Breserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqIgonLOPZVo0ue-2r7EOp1mqgnfjBDan-4bHODPmEseub0W21pp7KkBmaUSL_UF4H7fv3RIn_vR3CzOiD69msA%24&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5E7itRiShhB6zWkQZPsZusHUH7V46xUCPXRG9nli%2FGM%3D&reserved=0
> [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*7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638577742498857805*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C%26amp%3Bsdata%3D3pRC6d7ib7fRqdhwhX0mojHfB62G3KXT9*2BklX6G1IzQ*3D%26amp%3Breserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqIgonLOPZVo0ue-2r7EOp1mqgnfjBDan-4bHODPmEseub0W21pp7KkBmaUSL_UF4H7fv3RIn_vR3CzOn3PTOAQ%24&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cIPPn%2BiiKhZSrUKunvS09T0zzXfO48CUTwaAmCC1Cz4%3D&reserved=0
> [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*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%26amp%3Bdata%3D05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638577742498857805*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C%26amp%3Bsdata&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JQX%2FOWvD1SV%2BXIJr%2FbDqlkZbQiDNAxyo2lepoJfxaOo%3D&reserved=0 =q6jeb*2Fb2iLFfNoVMsXGr52j7gpu2ulP5iTOPux*2B*2BBLg*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKioqJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqIgonLOPZVo0ue-2r7EOp1mqgnfjBDan-4bHODPmEseub0W21pp7KkBmaUSL_UF4H7fv3RIn_vR3CzOT49INbE$
> [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*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%26amp%3Bdata%3D05*7C02*7Cgdaleg2*40groute.uic.edu*7C99ec8d1d999649e7d15208dcaf12a898*7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd*7C0*7C0*7C638577742498857805*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C79dd00a0399c44bcfaf008dcb6ff19b0%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638586455213308919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SZmotsENMLmz4hQnOGdfS8ZpPPrv68PHTtdGIt1ibM4%3D&reserved=0 CJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0*7C*7C*7C&amp;sdata=yvU7F9acBXQKz6YFNZdS8J4JZTgXYOQGeLsEPW*2FcLNo*3D&amp;reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUqKioqKioqJSUlKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqJSUlKiolJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqIgonLOPZVo0ue-2r7EOp1mqgnfjBDan-4bHODPmEseub0W21pp7KkBmaUSL_UF4H7fv3RIn_vR3CzOlLnW4Cg$