STAR HardProbes PWG

[Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>]

Hi Nihar,

   Thanks for the careful review and comments. The slides are updated at the same location. Please find my responses to your comments below

//“STAR Preliminary” needs to be included in all plots.//

----- I believe I have it on all plots, could you please point out which was missing?

Slide3:
You need to define what is  “v1”? Formula/_expression_.

---- Done

//_ Alternate observable - energy loss measurements without need for p+p 
-> This is not needed. Although I understand what do you mean because 
unlike R_AA/I_AA. It doesn’t tell about the amount of energy loss. Jet 
v1 is sensitive to path length dependence of energy loss but it can not 
measure energy loss as it is done in R_AA/I_AA. So in this context I 
would prefer to drop this.//

------- But it is still accessing energy loss. I changed to 'access to energy loss'. I think it is important to keep, as there are cases where we dont have needed p+p baseline for the measurements

//Slide4:
_ I hope you will update the right cartoon that we made recently
_ “Asymmetry along impact parameter direction at finite rapidity” -> 
This is not clear to me. I think you mean to say here, “asymmetries in 
participant nucleons motion along the impact parameter axis within 
finite rapidity”//

----- I have updated the cartoon and edited the sentences. Please see

//_”Creates difference in path length for hard produced partons at finite 
rapidity” -> By adding new cartoon, you can rephrase this as “Creates 
difference in path length for hard produced partons at forward and 
backward direction”//

------ I think finite rapidity is better, I will point to the cartoon to explain 

//Slide5:
_Taking the same dependence for differential production in x and y, -> 
for outsider, it is not clear what are x and y ? Please mention it.//

------- I have changed the sentence 

//Slide7:
Glauber + Theory -> Please mention what is “Theory” ?
I think, you can combine Slide6 and 7 to make a message that “asymmetry 
of participants along b direction”//
------- I have added the _expression_ in slide for clarification

//Slide8,9:
You can consider to combine these two slides.
And also if you can add that AMPT simulation plot with zero-v1 for 
binary profile and non-zero v1 from bulk that would be clear message.//

-------- I have added the binary profile in the back up 

//Slide10:
“hard-soft asymmetry” -> Please mention what is “hard-soft asymmetry”
Define PL (path length ) before
_ “Can directly access Parton energy loss” -> This is not a correct 
question to impose. Rather I would say “Is jet v1 sensitive to the path 
length dependence of Parton energy loss?
Becasue as I mentioned before we are not measuring energy loss.//
-------- Made the changes. Last bullet changed to 'can access parton energy loss' 

//Slide11:
I think it would be better to discuss EPD and ZDC detectors and how do 
you use those detectors to calculate 1st Order event plane angle 
compromising 1-2 introductory slides//

------ Given the time, I dont think this is needed. Also this is very standard. We dont use EPD, use ZDC for both datasets 

//Slide12:
_ Before this slide, I think you need to discuss how do you select jet 
in this measurement. How do you mitigate combinatoric jet using pT^lead 
cut?
_ You need to mention somewhere this slide, that “AuAu 200 GeV 
(2014+2016) data” or similar
_ Need to mention “p_{T,jet}^{reco}” in stead of pT,jet; and you need to 
define “p_{T,jet}^{reco} = pT,jet - rho*A.”//

--------- I have added a slide, Let me know if any more information needs to be included. Added the definition for p_T,jet^reco

//Slide13: You can keep this slide in backup//

----- I would prefer to show the comparison. I will try to make a version including charge hadron v1 on the same figure 

//Slide14:
_ Need to change x-axis title to “p_{T,jet}^{reco}”
_ Need to mention that are those purple tick markers are. (Bin size of 
“p_{T,jet}^{reco}”)
_ Please include what are the sources contributing to this systematic 
uncertainty.
_ R dependence -> jet R dependence//

----------- Done. Systematic sources are added in the back-up

//Slide16:
_ Please cite this proceedings https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08789 for 
bottom right figure//

----- This slide is remove now. Added comparison to v1 calculation 

//Slide17:
Please keep Au+Au and Isobar data (from slide14) side-by side to make a 
statement “isobar collisions consistent with Au+Au within uncertainties”
Slide18:
I think you don’t need to a dedicated slide for an outlook, you can have 
just one sentence at the end.//

----- I moved this to after summary as an outlook

thanks,

Sooraj

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 5:51 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Sooraj,

Thank you for this interesting measurement and slides.
Please find my comments below.

  “STAR Preliminary” needs to be included in all plots.

Slide3:
You need to define what is  “v1”? Formula/_expression_.
_ Alternate observable - energy loss measurements without need for p+p
-> This is not needed. Although I understand what do you mean because
unlike R_AA/I_AA. It doesn’t tell about the amount of energy loss. Jet
v1 is sensitive to path length dependence of energy loss but it can not
measure energy loss as it is done in R_AA/I_AA. So in this context I
would prefer to drop this.

_need to introduce what is v1 and v2?


Slide4:
_ I hope you will update the right cartoon that we made recently
_ “Asymmetry along impact parameter direction at finite rapidity” ->
This is not clear to me. I think you mean to say here, “asymmetries in
participant nucleons motion along the impact parameter axis within
finite rapidity”

_”Creates difference in path length for hard produced partons at finite
rapidity” -> By adding new cartoon, you can rephrase this as “Creates
difference in path length for hard produced partons at forward and
backward direction”

Slide5:
_Taking the same dependence for differential production in x and y, ->
for outsider, it is not clear what are x and y ? Please mention it.

Slide7:
Glauber + Theory -> Please mention what is “Theory” ?
I think, you can combine Slide6 and 7 to make a message that “asymmetry
of participants along b direction”


Slide8,9:
You can consider to combine these two slides.
And also if you can add that AMPT simulation plot with zero-v1 for
binary profile and non-zero v1 from bulk that would be clear message.

Slide10:
“hard-soft asymmetry” -> Please mention what is “hard-soft asymmetry”
Define PL (path length ) before
_ “Can directly access Parton energy loss” -> This is not a correct
question to impose. Rather I would say “Is jet v1 sensitive to the path
length dependence of Parton energy loss?
Becasue as I mentioned before we are not measuring energy loss.


Slide11:
I think it would be better to discuss EPD and ZDC detectors and how do
you use those detectors to calculate 1st Order event plane angle
compromising 1-2 introductory slides

Slide12:
_ Before this slide, I think you need to discuss how do you select jet
in this measurement. How do you mitigate combinatoric jet using pT^lead
cut?
_ You need to mention somewhere this slide, that “AuAu 200 GeV
(2014+2016) data” or similar
_ Need to mention “p_{T,jet}^{reco}” in stead of pT,jet; and you need to
define “p_{T,jet}^{reco} = pT,jet - rho*A.”

Slide13: You can keep this slide in backup

Slide14:
_ Need to change x-axis title to “p_{T,jet}^{reco}”
_ Need to mention that are those purple tick markers are. (Bin size of
“p_{T,jet}^{reco}”)
_ Please include what are the sources contributing to this systematic
uncertainty.
_ R dependence -> jet R dependence

Slide16:
_ Please cite this proceedings https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08789 for
bottom right figure

Slide17:
Please keep Au+Au and Isobar data (from slide14) side-by side to make a
statement “isobar collisions consistent with Au+Au within uncertainties”
Slide18:
I think you don’t need to a dedicated slide for an outlook, you can have
just one sentence at the end.


Best
Nihar


On 2024-09-11 20:32, webmaster AT star.bnl.gov wrote:
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Sooraj Radhakrishnan (skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov) has submitted a material
> for a
> review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/68896
>
> Deadline: 2024-09-22
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44242

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov