STAR HardProbes PWG

["Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>]

Hi Gabe,

Please see my comments below on your preliminary request slides. With these addressed, I sign off.

Thanks,

Isaac

4. 

Is this |n\sigma_\pi| < 10 cut just an initial loose selection? 

Do you mean |\Delta\eta_track| < 0.5?

8. 

Can you remind me why the combinatorial curve uses R = 0.4, despite comparing to R = 0.3 AuAu?

It might be good to mention the RAA here as well.

10. 

I know you had it in a previous presentation, but can you write on the slide the variation in UE definition that you make? I think it's that you use only one region instead of two, but whatever it is it would just be good to have on the slide for future reference.

Just to make sure I understand: when you say "without RAA correction" you mean the correction for the non-flat slope of the RAA (as you mention on s. 24), right? Or do you mean that no RAA is applied to the spectra? Or does this end up being equivalent in the template fitting? It would be nice if you could clarify this on the slide.

12. I must have missed this, but why is the RAA correction systematic not included here? Is it because the published data use the > 2 GeV selection so it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison? Is that why you detail a different approach on s. 30?

13. As I mentioned, it may not be allowed to show the updated pT > 3 GeV results. The conveners are discussing and we will let you know as soon as possible.

15. You say that the spectra are similar, but even on a log plot they look pretty different (also when looking at the ratio, at least below ~20 GeV). This really only causes a 3% change in the fake rate for the R = 0.4 case? I'm surprised. I guess it's a moot point, because you should do it the correct way, regardless of how different it is from the other way. I'm just a bit confused.

30. 

What jet kinematic is the 0.8% number from? Can I somehow get this number from one of the plots on the right? 

I think I know what you mean by "scale combinatorial peaks", but it's a bit vague. Please try rewording to make clearer.

On Sep 10, 2024, at 17:58, Gabe Dale-Gau <gdaleg2 AT uic.edu> wrote:

Hi Isaac,

Here is a link to my preliminary figures request post: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/gdalegau/Preliminary-Figures-Request-Hard-Probes-2024-Baryon-Meson-Ratios-Jets

I have currently addressed all comments from the HP-pwg meetings as well as the analysis meeting this morning. I have included one new slide in response to Rongrong's comments today. It is the first slide in backup, showing a comparison of the p+p jet spectra before and after embedding. This slide demonstrates the effect of introducing Au+Au background into p+p jets. The resulting post-embedding jet spectra, with the addition of R_AA, is used in my template fits to determine fake rate. These spectra now account for the presence of Au+Au and the published R_AA.

I am happy to field any further questions and comments via email. I will upload my presentation draft for the conference soon.

Thanks,

Gabe

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 2:10 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Hard Probes presenters,

I would appreciate it if you could reply to this message with a link to your preliminary request slides (if applicable) and a sentence or two describing any follow-ups you are currently implementing from previous meeting discussions before preliminary status can be given, as well as an estimate for the time/date when you will send a final set of request slides. Sorry to those of you who have already sent slides in some form to other email chains — it would just be helpful for the conveners if we could collect the latest and most up-to-date links all in one place as we review.

Thanks,
Isaac