STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Sooraj,

Thank you for implementing some of my comments and answering.

I have no further comments. I sign off.

Best
Nihar

On 2024-09-20 21:05, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:
> 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 [1]
> 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 [1]
> > 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 AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> Berkeley, CA 94720
> Ph: 510-495-2473 [2]
>
> Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08789__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EsoglMx-W-kCoS9d-TFWue6I8RzWLZ4ZJScU15ubjLPaPqgLgbDpkpzq_jD_5SRT5HGjdA4fJBC_yxWDoHGifWhbmLXcFhzEBik$
> [2] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473