STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Isaac,

I passed your talk to startalk.

But Please don't forget to update "N" in your slide24 "Runs 23+251,2: 
expected ~Nx (TBD!)"

Best of luck for this presentation.

Thank you
Nihar

On 2024-09-22 16:21, Mooney, Isaac wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for all the very helpful comments. A new version (v4) that
> implements comments from Sooraj, Rongrong, and Helen (offline), as
> well as some changes I had planned to make (most importantly I added a
> slide referencing the GPC#359 paper since it was just accepted by PRC
> a few days ago), is now on the node. There are a few points of
> beautification left (making sure I have the highest-res, newest plot
> in all cases; color-matching cartoons/datapoints/etc. when possible;
> font size/style regularization; etc.) but I think otherwise it’s
> getting pretty close. I have responses to comments below, and please
> let me know if there are any more before sign-off. Note: the talk is
> on Monday at 11:15 JST (Sunday at 10:15 PM EDT), ideally posted an
> hour in advance of that.
>
> Thanks,
> Isaac
>
> Rongrong:
>
> slide 5
> - "perfectly correlated" points to empty space? -- Yes, it's -1, but
> the axis ends at -0.8, so I drew the arrow to approximately where the
> -1 value would be.
>
> slide 8
> - It might be better to show jet dv1/dy vs. pt plot. -- Why do you
> think so? It seems we can extract much of the same information from
> each given that the slopes are written on this plot. It seems a bit
> more complicated to me to show the dv1/dy vs pT.
> - I do not think our data can rule out possible pT dependence. The
> statement of "independent of jet p_T" is a bit too strong, especially
> given that we do not correct for jet p_T. -- Sorry, I meant the fact
> that there is a finite v1 persists across the pT and R studied. But I
> have reworded.
>
> slide 9
> - I suggest to show the R = 0.4 plot since the effect is supposed to
> be stronger for larger jets. -- Okay, I showed the R = 0.2 plot
> because it had the smallest uncertainties, but I have switched it.
> - It is important to highlight in the figure and emphasize in the text
> that this measurement is for jets with pT_raw > 9 GeV/c and pT_cons >
> 2 GeV/c. The effect could be there if we go to lower jet or consistent
> pT. -- I guess I agree with you, but this will be a little tricky to
> mention without making it seem like there is a future plan for STAR to
> go to lower pTs, which I don't think there is (Gabe can correct me if
> I'm wrong). I will think of a good verbal wording to address this.
>
> slide 10
> - since you focus on radius dependence, maybe remove the left figure
> to save you some time -- Originally I had removed this figure, but I
> make a comment about it in the conclusions so I wanted to show it on
> the slide so it doesn't come from nowhere. In practice, the time
> consuming part is the first bullet anyway, so I think it is okay to
> keep, but I will remove it if I'm really struggling on time as I
> continue to practice.
> - "predict minimal suppression": I think you want to say minimal
> radius dependence of the suppression -- great point, fixed.
>
> slide 12
> - The text size is significantly larger than other slides. Maybe make
> them consistent -- Yes, I'll go through once I have somewhat finalized
> bullet points and make sure they are all consistent. It's 48-point
> throughout, but with more text it automatically shrinks to fit.
> - Consistent with SPS at 17.3 GeV -- good catch, thanks.
>
> slide 14
> - For the LHC results, are they measured using mid-rapidity J/psi and
> mid-rapidity multiplicity as we do? If not, it won't be a fair
> comparison. -- Yes, it's also midrapidity for J/psi and multiplicity.
>
> slide 16
> - Your conclusions are based on the extracted temperatures. I suggest
> to make them significantly bigger. -- done.
>
> slide 19
> - It might be useful to make it clear that this measurement is w.r.t.
> the event plane -- good point, done.
>
> slide 20
> - "First measurements": many other results are also first
> measurements, or you mean something else? -- Good point, I've removed
> it. It's not part of the physics conclusion anyway.
> - How does r_c cleanly separate perturbative and non-perturbative
> physics? -- I've reworked the takeaways slide. Please let me know if
> you have any comments on it.
> - Add some qualification to the third bullet -- done.
>
> slide 21
> - "minimal impact of regeneration at RHIC energies": on slide 12,
> model calculation shows that about half of the J/psi come from
> regeneration at 200 GeV. Probably add "below 62.4 GeV"? - done (I said
> ~60 GeV).
> - Third bullet does not read like a physics message -- see above
> message about reworking.
>
> Sooraj:
>
> S3: We have results on stream 5 also, right? Why not add a cartoon for
> that as well? -- Absolutely, just had to think about what to make the
> cartoon. I have a cartoon now.
>
> S5: What is the arrow 'perfectly correlated' pointing to? -- It's
> pointing to -1, because that doesn't exist on the axis. I will make it
> clear as I speak.
> S5: I think the difference between random track pairs and leading
> track pairs should be pointed out. Otherwise will be difficult for
> audience to read the plot -- I'm not exactly sure I understand the
> suggestion, but for other reasons I changed the first bullet to start
> with "Leading charged correlator, r_c,..." Does this address your
> comment too?
>
> S8: Outlook is not just ESE, so would suggest to remove the last
> bullet. v_1 has several advantages compared to other probes, so you
> can point to the talk to see details on the measurement and why they
> are interesting -- I originally removed it as you requested, but Helen
> thought I should have an outlook on each slide, so I've added it back
> in. Of course, in most of the slides the outlook isn't the single
> thing left to be done, and I will try not to make it seem that way. If
> you'd like a different thing highlighted as the outlook, feel free to
> let me know and I can replace what is currently there with that.
>
> S9: Does the left plot add anything to discussion? -- Yes, I think so.
> It's the theoretical prediction that lead to the measurement. It shows
> the behavior we might expect (at least for the kinematics they
> studied).
> S9: Could show the result with previous constituent threshold here.
> That way your statement will be clear. Currently the emphasis is not
> clear -- why? I show all of the new results for the other talks. It
> feels odd not to highlight Gabe's new work. I tried to clarify in the
> text, please let me know if that is okay.
>
> S10: Why dod you say models predicting minimal suppression? The left
> plot with LIDO is showing suppression. Minimal R dependence? -- Yes
> good point, it was a bad wording.
>
> S12: I think the pT dependence could be more interesting, or that
> could also be shown on the right. -- Since I'm highlighting especially
> the newest energy of 17.3 GeV, which only has two pT bins, I prefer
> the sqrt(s) dependence. I think if I had more time, I would agree with
> you that I could add the pT dependence plot on the right, but in 15
> minutes, I would prefer to just pick one to highlight. I can mention
> verbally that the pT dependence was also studied.
>
> S14: Do you have a better resolution version for this plot? -- Using
> the new version from Brennan, this is fixed. But in general, I've just
> been screenshotting from people's talks, but will make sure I have the
> best resolution version possible in each case.
>
> S19: Title could be changed to photon induced J/Psi polarization -- I
> tried to make all of the slide titles related to the physics message
> rather than the observable / talk name.
>
> S20: Third bullet is not correct. Why not say what is measured, no
> enhancement of p/pi ratio within jets? -- how is it not correct? We
> observed a medium-induced hadrochemistry effect? I'm trying to keep
> the physics conclusions fairly broadly applicable here.
> S21: Are MPI the only proposed explanation? String percolation and
> change of soft multiplicity are also proposed, right? -- I added
> string percolation, good point.
> S23: I think you will update the Nx? -- Yes, still TBD, but will do
> ASAP.
>
> > On Sep 22, 2024, at 03:36, Sooraj Radhakrishnan
> > <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Isaac,
> > Thanks for the updated version and implementing the comments from
> > the rehearsal. Please find some further comments below
> >
> > S2: I think this slide is still quite busy. Could you move the boxes
> > for ZDC and VPD away from the figure? Why highlight BBC while you
> > point to other sub-systems?
> > S3: We have results on stream 5 also, right? Why not add a cartoon
> > for that as well?
> >
> > S5: What is N_cc?
> > S5: What is the arrow 'perfectly correlated' pointing to?
> > S5: I think the difference between random track pairs and leading
> > track pairs should be pointed out. Otherwise will be difficult for
> > audience to read the plot
> >
> > S8: Please use the cartoon from my presentation
> > S8: I would like to highlight here as 'a new observable to probe
> > path length dependent energy loss in QGP' (second bullet)
> > S8: Have the definition only for v1
> > S8: Outlook is not just ESE, so would suggest to remove the last
> > bullet. v_1 has several advantages compared to other probes, so you
> > can point to the talk to see details on the measurement and why they
> > are interesting
> > S8: I would prefer this plot that pT dependence, as the slope is an
> > extracted quantity
> >
> > S9: Does the left plot add anything to discussion?
> > S9: Could show the result with previous constituent threshold here.
> > That way your statement will be clear. Currently the emphasis is not
> > clear
> >
> > S10: Why dod you say models predicting minimal suppression? The left
> > plot with LIDO is showing suppression. Minimal R dependence?
> > S10: Outlook: could say what is the increase in statistics expected.
> > adding generalized --> measuring generalized. Can remove the last
> > one. What is the tightening you refer to here?
> >
> > S12: I think the pT dependence could be more interesting, or that
> > could also be shown on the right.
> > S12: expected to be
> >
> > S14: Do you have a better resolution version for this plot?
> >
> > S19: gamma induced J/Psi polarization
> > S19: Title could be changed to photon induced J/Psi polarization
> > S19: Due to photon linear polarization and ...
> >
> > S20: Third bullet is not correct. Why not say what is measured, no
> > enhancement of p/pi ratio within jets?
> > S20: The uncertainties currently are quite large to conclude the
> > latter part of the last bullet here. You could say same as in the
> > slide, within uncertainties no broadening seen
> > S21: Are MPI the only proposed explanation? String percolation and
> > change of soft multiplicity are also proposed, right?
> > S23: I think you will update the Nx?
> >
> > Best,
> > Sooraj
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:16 AM Ma, Rongrong <marr AT bnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hello Youqi
> >
> > Thanks for pointing me this very nice study.
> >
> > So the difference between data and MC could be due to that the
> > resonance decay contributions are different, right? I feel this is
> > an important aspect that should be stated.
> >
> > Do you have a similar plot for HERWIG as what's shown on your slide
> > 22 for PYTHIA? This could help us understand better the difference
> > between the two.
> >
> > On your slide 23, top table, the percentages for those resonances in
> > HERWIG add up to 43%. What other resonances do these leading pi+
> > originate from in HERWIG?
> >
> > Best
> > Rongrong
> >
> > On Sep 20, 2024, at 12:40 PM, Youqi Song <youqi.song AT yale.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rongrong,
> >
> > I would like to clarify this point you raised:
> >
> > _Here HERWIG7 and PTYHIA8 predict basically same r_c values. Given
> > that HERWIG uses clusters while PYTHIA uses strings, does this mean
> > there are something else that dictate r_c values rather than the
> > fragmentation scheme?_
> >
> > In addition to string or cluster hadronization, we now believe that
> > resonance decays could also play a role. I have details of this
> > study in my slide 9 and backup slides 22 and 23. But to summarize, I
> > found that if I look at the parent of the leading track in jet,
> > then:
> >
> > In PYTHIA, 50% of the time it’s from a quark or diquark, and 50%
> > of the time it’s from resonance decay.
> >
> > In HEREIG, 30% of the time it’s from a cluster, and 70% of the
> > time it’s from resonance decay.
> >
> > So one takeaway is that although PYTHIA and HEREIG predict the same
> > r_c, there is actually a huge difference in how they arrive at it.
> >
> > On the other hand, a lot of these resonance decays are what we call
> > “sign preserving”, eg, rho+ goes to pi+ pi0, so when we measure
> > a leading pi+, we still have the charge information from its rho+
> > parent.
> >
> > Best,
> > Youqi
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:14 AM Ma, Rongrong <marr AT bnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hello Isaac
> >
> > Very nice set of slides to showcase STAR results.
> >
> > I have some comments for your consideration.
> >
> > - While it is already challenging to highlight 10 talks, still I
> > think it will be good to include at least new preliminary results
> > from posters since yours is the only STAR highlight talk. If we do
> > not highlight them, others won't either.
> >
> > slide 2
> > - not sure if "Zr+Zr, Ru+Ru" in gray is easy to see on a projector
> > - remove "provides"
> >
> > slide 5
> > - text beneath is a bit too small
> > - "perfectly correlated" points to empty space?
> > - "Pythia predicts more string-like fragmentation": I thought there
> > is only string-like fragmentation in Pythia, but this statement
> > seems to imply that there are other fragmentation mechanisms. What
> > are they?
> > - Here HERWIG7 and PTYHIA8 predict basically same r_c values. Given
> > that HERWIG uses clusters while PYTHIA uses strings, does this mean
> > there are something else that dictate r_c values rather than the
> > fragmentation scheme?
> >
> > slide 8
> > - It might be better to show jet dv1/dy vs. pt plot.
> > - I do not think our data can rule out possible pT dependence. The
> > statement of "independent of jet p_T" is a bit too strong,
> > especially given that we do not correct for jet p_T.
> >
> > slide 9
> > - I suggest to show the R = 0.4 plot since the effect is supposed to
> > be stronger for larger jets.
> > - It is important to highlight in the figure and emphasize in the
> > text that this measurement is for jets with pT_raw > 9 GeV/c and
> > pT_cons > 2 GeV/c. The effect could be there if we go to lower jet
> > or consistent pT.
> >
> > slide 10
> > - since you focus on radius dependence, maybe remove the left figure
> > to save you some time
> > - "predict minimal suppression": I think you want to say minimal
> > radius dependence of the suppression
> >
> > slide 12
> > - The text size is significantly larger than other slides. Maybe
> > make them consistent
> > - Consistent with SPS at 17.3 GeV
> >
> > slide 14
> > - For the LHC results, are they measured using mid-rapidity J/psi
> > and mid-rapidity multiplicity as we do? If not, it won't be a fair
> > comparison.
> >
> > slide 16
> > - Your conclusions are based on the extracted temperatures. I
> > suggest to make them significantly bigger.
> >
> > slide 19
> > - It might be useful to make it clear that this measurement is
> > w.r.t. the event plane
> >
> > slide 20
> > - "First measurements": many other results are also first
> > measurements, or you mean something else?
> > - How does r_c cleanly separate perturbative and non-perturbative
> > physics?
> > - Add some qualification to the third bullet
> >
> > slide 21
> > - "minimal impact of regeneration at RHIC energies": on slide 12,
> > model calculation shows that about half of the J/psi come from
> > regeneration at 200 GeV. Probably add "below 62.4 GeV"?
> > - Third bullet does not read like a physics message
> >
> > Best
> > Rongrong
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2024, at 4:01 PM, Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > v2 uploaded now with comments from the STAR practice talk addressed.
> > Will be uploading a v3 with comments from the Yale group implemented
> > as well. Not sure yet of the timescale for that version as I need to
> > prepare for the trip tonight.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2024, at 22:27, Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
> > wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Trimmed version (v1) uploaded now (aesthetics still to be improved).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2024, at 20:01, Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is a rough draft of the talk. The organizers today let us know
> > that the talks in this session are 15’+5’. So I am in the
> > process of significantly trimming down. I’ll upload a new draft
> > when that is done, but wanted to let you see the talk as soon as
> > possible. PS I am aware that the aesthetics are not good right now
> > — I will improve them in a future version.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2024, at 19:55, webmaster AT star.bnl.gov wrote:
> >
> > Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> >
> > Isaac Mooney (isaac.mooney AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a
> > review,
> > please have a look:
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov%2FSTAR%2Fnode%2F68977&data=05%7C02%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C20e897ccd9fd49c3479a08dcd852a094%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638623096616541730%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BFMXX%2BnCwtnmQeIbdKlt%2FnQ40iXFKYdgjYln8fbbS0w%3D&reserved=0
> > [1]
> >
> > Deadline: 2024-09-22
> > ---
> > If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster@https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.star.bnl.gov%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cisaac.mooney%40yale.edu%7C20e897ccd9fd49c3479a08dcd852a094%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C638623096616566420%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XZrS4rIJf%2BjzOO8wA83Z62u5wgFlDd72PE0u2KWZUYI%3D&reserved=0
> > [2]
>
>  --
>
> 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 [3]
>
> Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/68977
> [2] http://www.star.bnl.gov/
> [3] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473