STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Diptanil,

I have gone through your AN, PRC and PRL paper drafts.
There are some fine tuning on physics message are needed, PRL abstract 
word counts and Title need a round of discussion, that, I think in GPC, 
will be discussed certainly.

I find these are in good shape and ready for GPC formation.
I sign off.

If Qian and Isaac approve then we can request for the GPC formation.

Best
Nihar

On 2024-12-01 22:55, Diptanil Roy wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The updated version of the AN is here:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AnalysisNote_8.pdf
> The responses are here:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Responses_Isaac_Qian.pdf
>
> The webpage is updated with the same.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2024 at 8:14 AM Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Issac and Qian,
> >
> > Thank you for your detailed comments on the AN. Please find my
> > replies inline below:
> >
> > P.S. Seems like Drupal is down (including all STAR webpages), so I
> > am attaching the latest version of the AN to the next email. I will
> > update the webpage when drupal is available again.
> >
> > Issac's comments:
> ==============================================================================================================================
> > > 79. How was 600 MeV chosen for the D0 daughters?
> >
> > This is the cut that was chosen for the D0 spectra and the D0 v2
> > analyses. I am not entirely sure if this cut was picked after an
> > analysis of the S/B ratio or in an ad-hoc way, but the effect of
> > this high pt cut for the D0 daughter candidates (as opposed to say
> > 0.2 or 0.3 GeV/c) is to suppress the combinatorial background in the
> > low pt region for the KPi pairs.
> >
> > > 83. What is the nhitsdEdx cut used?
> >
> > None, again this is for consistency with the D0 spectra and the D0
> > v2 analyses. I checked both the ANs along with the codes available
> > with the paper submissions in CVS. Again, the nHitsFit > 20 is a
> > pretty strict cut, so a separate nHitsdEdx cut might not be
> > essential.
> >
> > > 139. Sorry, just to make sure I understand, do you mean "all the
> > > jet constituents" except the D0 candidate, or really "all" jet
> > > constituents? I'm not sure why we wouldn't assign the proper mass
> > > in a situation where we're fairly sure of that particle's
> > > identity.
> >
> > First reason is that using the mass of the D0 instead of pi0 doesn't
> > affect any of the quantities we are measuring. The comparison for
> > PYTHIA jets for jet pT is below.
> > Second reason is that in the hadronic correction, we always remove
> > the energy contribution of the tracks by assuming pion mass. To keep
> > things consistent, I chose to use the pi0 mass.
> >
> > In my opinion, the only quantity that should be affected by this
> > should be the jet mass. If someone looks at that in the future, it
> > might be prudent to treat the mass in a better way.
> >
> > > Fig. 1.5. I'm a little surprised that the weights are quite this
> > > negative in the background regions. But I guess this is due to a
> > > negative covariance and may not be a problem as long as the sum of
> > > sWeights in a given control variable bin is non-negative? Are
> > > there any such bins in the analysis where the sum is negative?
> >
> > There aren't any negative bins for D0 pT, however, if we plot a 2D
> > distribution of D0 Jet pT and Z and fill the entries with these
> > sWeights, there could be some bins where the count is negative. I
> > have chosen the binnings such that there are as few of these bins as
> > possible, however when they exist, the count is set to zero, and the
> > error is set to the actual error of the bin.
> >
> > > 168. Is the reason there is any discrepancy at all entirely due to
> > > sPlot? Or are there any other differences (e.g. selection
> > > criteria, binning, failed jobs, different random seed, etc.)?
> >
> > Most of the above. The selection criteria is similar, however the
> > fitting method in sPlot is an unbinned maximum likelihood fit (as
> > opposed to binned fits for the old analyses), some of the files used
> > in 2018 are no longer available in the distributed disks etc.
> >
> > > 189. When you apply the hadronic correction, have the K and pi
> > > already been removed from consideration so that their track pTs
> > > are not subtracted from the tower ETs, or do you include them for
> > > this correction and remove them later? I would assume the latter
> > > except you've already mentioned in the text that they are removed.
> >
> > Yes, the latter is true. I account for the K pi energy that is
> > deposited on the towers and perform hadronic correction on them in
> > the same way as I do for all other tracks.
> >
> > > Fig. 1.10. I can understand that because sequential recombination
> > > algorithms in general don't have to have an exact cone shape at
> > > the jet radius (although anti-kT is fairly circular), you could
> > > technically get D0s beyond DeltaR = R_jet. But DeltaR = 0.6 would
> > > be pretty surprising to me. Or do the entries in the bin stop at
> > > just a hair past 0.4, and the bin is just wider than necessary?
> >
> > It's the latter, the bin is quite large at the end, and is removed
> > after unfolding anyway.
> >
> > > Figs. 1.10 - 1.12. I'm a bit surprised the z_jet^uncorrected plots
> > > look identical between Figs. 1.11 and 1.10. Looking at the 40-80%
> > > distributions as an example, I'm not able to spot the difference.
> > > I would have thought in the tails, either positive or negative,
> > > there should be some difference, despite the much lower counts of
> > > D0jets with D0 pT > 5 GeV, since the D0 pT being larger should
> > > contribute to a larger z. I see from Fig. 1.12 that actually the
> > > tails drop off much more dramatically for the larger D0 pT so I
> > > guess my intuition was wrong. Should I think of this as being
> > > caused by the fact that jets with a large pT D0 are much less
> > > likely to be background jets, which decreases counts both for
> > > negative and large-positive z?
> >
> > Yeah, I needed to do a double-take on this as well. First thing is
> > we should probably not read too much into trends in uncorrected z
> > plots. There's a lot of pT smearing, so the trends are not trivial
> > to begin with. But even if we just look at the jet pt distribution
> > for D0 pT [1-5], [5-10] and [1-10] together (plot below), we can see
> > the 3 orders of magnitude difference between D0 pT [1-5] and [5-10]
> > GeV (1st panel). The 2nd panel is just the ratio ([1-5] +
> > [5-10])/[1-10] spectra, and is 1 as expected.
> >
> > > Corollary 1: is the jet pT fixed for the D0 z plot, or is it
> > > integrated over jet pT? [Whatever the answer, it would be good to
> > > specify somewhere in the analysis note, similarly for the DeltaR
> > > as well].
> >
> > These are all the D0 jets, no cuts on the jet pT. When I unfold, I
> > unfold over the whole jet pt range. For example, for D0 pT [1-10]
> > GeV, the jet pT can physically take values above 1 GeV. So, I unfold
> > the whole spectra from pT,Jet > 1 GeV, and then quote the final
> > spectrum from 5 - 20 GeV only. I added a note to clarify this in the
> > AN (L206 - 208).
> >
> > > Corollary 2: is there any requirement on number of jet
> > > constituents? Is it possible to have a jet that is just the D0 if
> > > it passes all other requirements? I think we talked about this
> > > during a PWG meeting and you mentioned that these one-particle
> > > jets were included (so there's a separate category included in the
> > > 0.9 - 1 z bin which are identically 1.0) [I just read the paper
> > > and see this is the case]. Have you checked the effect that it has
> > > on the results (pT, z, DeltaR) to disallow these jets?
> >
> > There is no requirement on the number of jet constituents. You
> > recall correctly that I included an overflow bin (z in [1-1.1]) in
> > an iteration, and did the unfolding accordingly and the results of
> > the unfolding were unchanged. I have not removed jets like these
> > completely, because I wasn't sure how to account for the bias
> > introduced in the unfolding due to removing the single particle
> > jets. Also, another analysis of fragmentation function for J/psi
> > from CMS here [1] also kept the single particle jets in the mix by
> > setting z = 1 to z = 0.999 with a converged unfolding, so we used
> > the same in this analysis.
> >
> > > Fig. 1.14. I think I understand why the distribution in raw z is
> > > bimodal for the 40-80% centrality selection for the previous
> > > plots, but do you have a good intuition for why it isn't
> > > continuous in the 10-40% case for R = 0.2? And where are the bins
> > > just below 0 for the 40-80%?
> >
> > I am not sure if I follow the statement about discontinuity for
> > 10-40 % alone. If you mean the non-differentiable curve around 0,
> > that's true for the z distributions in all centralities. One of the
> > bins is z in [-0.5, 0] and the other is z in [0, 0.5]. These have
> > contributions from different jets. These have contributions from
> > different jets.
> >
> > * z in [-0.5, 0] comes from jets where too much energy had been
> > removed from the jets using the area based background subtraction
> > resulting in corrected pT,Jet around the left tails of the pT,Jet
> > distributions.
> > * Accordingly, z in [0., 0.5] comes from jets where not a lot of
> > energy had been removed from the jets using the area based
> > background subtraction resulting in corrected pT,Jet around the
> > right tails of the pT,Jet distributions.
> >
> > For the bin below 0 for the 40-80 %, the count was 0 for those bins
> > from the sPlot method.
> >
> > > 275. When you say "already corrected for the D0 reconstruction
> > > efficiency at this stage" do you mean there is a step between the
> > > previous and this one of applying D0 efficiency?
> >
> > I mean, in the measured data, the uncorrected spectra are "already
> > corrected for the D0 reconstruction efficiency ...". So, when we
> > unfold, this is not an effect we should take into consideration.
> > Therefore, we make sure that every D0 generated in PYTHIA at the
> > particle level is available for analysis in the detector level. Of
> > course, we can not do that by requiring this condition on the
> > reconstructed event for GEANT (i.e. the kaon and pion from D0 decay
> > must be matched to two distinct reconstructed tracks in the detector
> > level, this introduces unnecessary bias in the sample which is not
> > well-explained, and also would also be a waste of precious compute).
> > Therefore, we take the momentum resolution of the kaon pion tracks
> > from simulation and always reconstruct the D0 daughters in the
> > detector level, irrespective of the presence of one or both of the
> > daughter tracks (which are discarded).
> >
> > > 278. I'm a little confused -- you say the D0 is reconstructed at
> > > detector-level but the daughters are not? And then you use
> > > momentum resolution to reconstruct it? Can you clarify what you
> > > mean here?
> >
> > Hopefully, the last answer cleared this one up. The way we ensure
> > the D0 is always present at the reconstructed level is by smearing
> > the particle level kaon and pion daughters from PYTHIA with the
> > momentum resolution and using those smeared tracks to reconstruct
> > the D0. Simply "triggering" on D0 events which eventually have a
> > reconstructed D0 would not be ideal for reasons mentioned above.
> >
> > > Fig. 1.20 - 1.22. It would be great if the y-axis of the ratio
> > > plots could be zoomed in a bit so any potential shapes could be
> > > observed. Something like 0.5 - 1.5 should work in all cases given
> > > how excellent the agreement is.
> >
> > Done. Replaced the plots with the recommended axis limits in the AN
> > now. (Pg 31 - 33)
> >
> > > 374. Are fakes also weighted by this factor? What, if anything, is
> > > done for misses?
> >
> > The way I have set up the unfolding is to include all jets
> > reconstructed with a D0 inside in the response matrix, so there are
> > no fakes due to the jet pT. This is the reason for such wide
> > acceptance ranges in the uncorrected jet pt plots (Figs 1.10-1.14).
> > Fakes can also happen if a D0 jet is inside the pseudorapidity
> > acceptance range in the detector level but is outside in the
> > particle level. In the sample we have, such cases are almost
> > negligible (mostly 0 for all cases), hence these are ignored.
> > Misses can happen because a particle level D0 jet with the
> > pseudorapidity acceptance range is reconstructed as a detector level
> > jet outside the pseudorapidity acceptance range. In such cases, the
> > weight factors (dependent only on pT and z) are used to fill the
> > response matrix.
> >
> > > 390. Can this statement be quantified somehow? Can you show the
> > > correlations between the three observables: pT, z, and DeltaR for
> > > example? Or show the 3D unfolding result even though statistics
> > > are poor? Or some other way.
> >
> > So, the 3D unfolding results do not converge at all for this
> > analysis, ergo it's quite difficult to do that. However, we do still
> > unfold with pT vs DeltaR distribution after reweighting by the
> > data-driven fragmentation function. The variation due to this is
> > about 2-3 % in most cases (see Fig. 1.36, 1.45) for pT,D < 5 GeV/c
> > and about 10 % (see Fig. 1.51) for pT,D > 5 GeV/c. This is probably
> > the best way to show the effect of the prior variation on the radial
> > profile.
> >
> > > 415. Hijing -> Pythia? Or is Hijing used somehow?
> >
> > No, this is Hijing used by the D0 spectra analysis only. They used a
> > data-driven simulation method and also a full sample of HIJING, and
> > this uncertainty is to deal with the differences between the two.
> > See Fig. 81 here [2] along with the associated text.
> >
> > > 431. "DCA < 3 cm", yes? 0.2 cm seems like a fairly minimal
> > > variation. Do statistics really significantly suffer for e.g. a 2
> > > cm cut as a variation?
> >
> > Yes, 0.2 cm is small, and I had checked with 2 cm as well for
> > QM2023. The statistics suffer with a cut of 2 cm for the peripheral
> > cases more than most, however the results were consistent. I can
> > redo this in the background with the latest updates to the code to
> > show the effect of reducing DCA to 2 cm.
> >
> > > 462. You say that only the uncertainty on R1 is quoted but also
> > > say the uncertainty is given by the second term on the RHS of eq.
> > > 1.7. How are these both true?
> >
> > The statistical uncertainty % is quoted from R1 only. The 2nd term
> > on the RHS of eq. 1.7 is the uncertainty due to a variation of the
> > prior. This is systematic in nature and hence is quoted as such.
> >
> > > Fig. 1.32.
> > > This probably demonstrates that I'm not as familiar as I should be
> > > with the previous D0 analysis, but can you explain why you have
> > > uncertainties related both to D0 reconstruction efficiency with
> > > and without vertex correction?
> > > When you say "peripheral (right)", you actually mean "bottom" in
> > > this case, right? Since the plot has wrapped to the next row. Just
> > > want to make sure I'm not mixing up midcentral and peripheral.
> >
> > This is just to differentiate the uncertainty from the topological
> > cuts vs that from the vertex correction part. These are both derived
> > from the D0 spectra analysis. And yes, peripheral (right) is
> > actually "bottom". I have updated the captions now.
> >
> > > Fig. 1.65. Shouldn't the full jet pT spectrum be harder than the
> > > charged jet spectrum? It looks like it is until the last one or
> > > two bins in all cases, which is a bit odd to me.
> >
> > There is an additional cut on the D0 pT of 1-10 GeV/c which means
> > the total number of charged jets in the pT,Jet range (3-20) GeV is
> > more or less consistent with the total number of full jets in the
> > pT,Jet range (5-20) GeV. Even with that, the full jets spectrum is
> > harder in all cases other than the last bin for central events.
> >
> > Qian's comments
> ==============================================================================================================================
> > > 1. It don’t show a discussion of sWeight’s error bar and how
> > > the error
> > > bars propagated in your final results?
> >
> > Since the sWeights are just entered into the histograms as weights,
> > they are propagated as Poisson errors i.e error of a bin = sqrt(sum
> > of all weights in that bin). In the trivial case where all the
> > weights are 1, this is the sqrt(n) error. This is handled by ROOT
> > histograms directly when sumw2 is called before filling histograms,
> > hence I didn't add a separate discussion.
> > 2. It is not clear to me how did you avoid the double count for the
> > towers in Jet reconstruction part. How did you carry out the
> > hadronic
> > correction?
> >
> > Each track is matched to a tower (or to a nearest tower) by the
> > track-tower matching algorithm in the event maker. I calculate the
> > energy contribution of all the matched tracks on to a specific tower
> > by assuming the tracks are all pions and subtracting the energy from
> > the tower's recorded energy.
> >
> > I have now included this description in the AN (L191).
> >
> > 3. Jet Pt with background correction will have some negative value.
> > Did
> > you also included this part in your z and delta R calcuation?
> >
> > Yes, z is calculated with the corrected jet pt, that's why z takes
> > unphysical negative values. delta R is not directly dependent on jet
> > pt, however, there can be an implicit dependence. Hence, 2D
> > unfolding is used to correct (jet pt, z) and (jet pt, delta R).
> >
> > 4. For the data-driven unfolding method, do you have a plot of proof
> > of
> > convergence for this method?
> >
> > The trivial closures still hold for the data-driven unfolding
> > method. Since they are repetitive, I did not include them in the AN.
> > Beyond that, it is just a choice of prior we are making.
> >
> > Thank you again for the detailed questions.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 9:01 PM tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Neil and PAs,
> > >
> > > Nice work. Since the D0 meson reconstruction is identical to
> > > STAR
> > > published paper. I assumed this part should be ok.
> > > I have few comments on your analysis note, please find below:
> > > 1. It don’t show a discussion of sWeight’s error bar and how
> > > the error
> > > bars propagated in your final results?
> > > 2. It is not clear to me how did you avoid the double count for
> > > the
> > > towers in Jet reconstruction part. How did you carry out the
> > > hadronic
> > > correction?
> > > 3. Jet Pt with background correction will have some negative
> > > value. Did
> > > you also included this part in your z and delta R calcuation?
> > > 4. For the data-driven unfolding method, do you have a plot of
> > > proof of
> > > convergence for this method?
> > >
> > > Qian Yang
> > >
> > > On 2024-11-28 06:05, Mooney, Isaac wrote:
> > > > Hi Neil and PAs,
> > > >
> > > > For now I’m focusing my comments on the analysis note (see
> > > below),
> > > > since I will be the PWG rep for this analysis and can give
> > > detailed
> > > > comments on the paper after GPC formation. Hopefully this saves
> > > a bit
> > > > of time getting the ball rolling due to Neil’s time
> > > constraints. I
> > > > did do a quick read-through of the short paper as well just to
> > > make
> > > > sure that it’s acceptable for GPC formation. I had some
> > > comments,
> > > > but nothing preventing it moving to the next step, so I’ll
> > > hold off
> > > > for now until I do a more detailed read-through at that time.
> > > We’ll
> > > > see if Qian or Nihar have any major comments, but mine on the
> > > analysis
> > > > note can be addressed in parallel with GPC formation which I
> > > think the
> > > > analysis is ready for.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, and congratulations on advancing this high-quality
> > > analysis to
> > > > this stage,
> > > > Isaac
> > > >
> > > > 79. How was 600 MeV chosen for the D0 daughters?
> > > >
> > > > 83. What is the nhitsdEdx cut used?
> > > >
> > > > 139. Sorry, just to make sure I understand, do you mean "all the
> > > jet
> > > > constituents" except the D0 candidate, or really "all" jet
> > > > constituents? I'm not sure why we wouldn't assign the proper
> > > mass in a
> > > > situation where we're fairly sure of that particle's identity.
> > > >
> > > > Fig. 1.5. I'm a little surprised that the weights are quite this
> > > > negative in the background regions. But I guess this is due to a
> > > > negative covariance and may not be a problem as long as the sum
> > > of
> > > > sWeights in a given control variable bin is non-negative? Are
> > > there
> > > > any such bins in the analysis where the sum is negative?
> > > >
> > > > 168. Is the reason there is any discrepancy at all entirely due
> > > to
> > > > sPlot? Or are there any other differences (e.g. selection
> > > criteria,
> > > > binning, failed jobs, different random seed, etc.)?
> > > >
> > > > 189. When you apply the hadronic correction, have the K and pi
> > > already
> > > > been removed from consideration so that their track pTs are not
> > > > subtracted from the tower ETs, or do you include them for this
> > > > correction and remove them later? I would assume the latter
> > > except
> > > > you've already mentioned in the text that they are removed.
> > > >
> > > > Fig. 1.10. I can understand that because sequential
> > > recombination
> > > > algorithms in general don't have to have an exact cone shape at
> > > the
> > > > jet radius (although anti-kT is fairly circular), you could
> > > > technically get D0s beyond DeltaR = R_jet. But DeltaR = 0.6
> > > would be
> > > > pretty surprising to me. Or do the entries in the bin stop at
> > > just a
> > > > hair past 0.4, and the bin is just wider than necessary?
> > > >
> > > > Figs. 1.10 - 1.12. I'm a bit surprised the z_jet^uncorrected
> > > plots
> > > > look identical between Figs. 1.11 and 1.10. Looking at the
> > > 40-80%
> > > > distributions as an example, I'm not able to spot the
> > > difference. I
> > > > would have thought in the tails, either positive or negative,
> > > there
> > > > should be some difference, despite the much lower counts of
> > > D0jets
> > > > with D0 pT > 5 GeV, since the D0 pT being larger should
> > > contribute to
> > > > a larger z. I see from Fig. 1.12 that actually the tails drop
> > > off much
> > > > more dramatically for the larger D0 pT so I guess my intuition
> > > was
> > > > wrong. Should I think of this as being caused by the fact that
> > > jets
> > > > with a large pT D0 are much less likely to be background jets,
> > > which
> > > > decreases counts both for negative and large-positive z?
> > > > Corollary 1: is the jet pT fixed for the D0 z plot, or is it
> > > > integrated over jet pT? [Whatever the answer, it would be good
> > > to
> > > > specify somewhere in the analysis note, similarly for the DeltaR
> > > as
> > > > well].
> > > > Corollary 2: is there any requirement on number of jet
> > > constituents?
> > > > Is it possible to have a jet that is just the D0 if it passes
> > > all
> > > > other requirements? I think we talked about this during a PWG
> > > meeting
> > > > and you mentioned that these one-particle jets were included (so
> > > > there's a separate category included in the 0.9 - 1 z bin which
> > > are
> > > > identically 1.0) [I just read the paper and see this is the
> > > case].
> > > > Have you checked the effect that it has on the results (pT, z,
> > > DeltaR)
> > > > to disallow these jets?
> > > >
> > > > Fig. 1.14. I think I understand why the distribution in raw z is
> > > > bimodal for the 40-80% centrality selection for the previous
> > > plots,
> > > > but do you have a good intuition for why it isn't continuous in
> > > the
> > > > 10-40% case for R = 0.2? And where are the bins just below 0 for
> > > the
> > > > 40-80%?
> > > >
> > > > 275. When you say "already corrected for the D0 reconstruction
> > > > efficiency at this stage" do you mean there is a step between
> > > the
> > > > previous and this one of applying D0 efficiency?
> > > >
> > > > 278. I'm a little confused -- you say the D0 is reconstructed at
> > > > detector-level but the daughters are not? And then you use
> > > momentum
> > > > resolution to reconstruct it? Can you clarify what you mean
> > > here?
> > > > Fig. 1.20 - 1.22. It would be great if the y-axis of the ratio
> > > plots
> > > > could be zoomed in a bit so any potential shapes could be
> > > observed.
> > > > Something like 0.5 - 1.5 should work in all cases given how
> > > excellent
> > > > the agreement is.
> > > >
> > > > 374. Are fakes also weighted by this factor? What, if anything,
> > > is
> > > > done for misses?
> > > >
> > > > 390. Can this statement be quantified somehow? Can you show the
> > > > correlations between the three observables: pT, z, and DeltaR
> > > for
> > > > example? Or show the 3D unfolding result even though statistics
> > > are
> > > > poor? Or some other way.
> > > >
> > > > 415. Hijing -> Pythia? Or is Hijing used somehow?
> > > >
> > > > 431. "DCA < 3 cm", yes? 0.2 cm seems like a fairly minimal
> > > variation.
> > > > Do statistics really significantly suffer for e.g. a 2 cm cut as
> > > a
> > > > variation?
> > > >
> > > > 462. You say that only the uncertainty on R1 is quoted but also
> > > say
> > > > the uncertainty is given by the second term on the RHS of eq.
> > > 1.7. How
> > > > are these both true?
> > > >
> > > > Fig. 1.32.
> > > > This probably demonstrates that I'm not as familiar as I should
> > > be
> > > > with the previous D0 analysis, but can you explain why you have
> > > > uncertainties related both to D0 reconstruction efficiency with
> > > and
> > > > without vertex correction?
> > > > When you say "peripheral (right)", you actually mean "bottom" in
> > > this
> > > > case, right? Since the plot has wrapped to the next row. Just
> > > want to
> > > > make sure I'm not mixing up midcentral and peripheral.
> > > >
> > > > Fig. 1.65. Shouldn't the full jet pT spectrum be harder than the
> > > > charged jet spectrum? It looks like it is until the last one or
> > > two
> > > > bins in all cases, which is a bit odd to me.
> > > >
> > > > > On Nov 9, 2024, at 14:49, Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear conveners and HP-pwg,
> > > > >
> > > > > We now have a proposed version of the STAR D0 Meson Tagged Jets
> > > > > paper drafts available. The links for the paper drafts,
> > > analysis
> > > > > notes, and the paper webpage are below. We request to form a
> > > GPC to
> > > > > get this work over the line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please send your comments and feedback.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paper Drafts
> > > > >
> > > > > Short Paper: Link [1]
> > > > > Long Paper: Link [2]
> > > > >
> > > > > Analysis Note Link [3]
> > > > >
> > > > > Paper Webpage Link [4]
> > > > >
> > > > > PWGC Preview Link [5]
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you to everyone who helped with this analysis since the
> > > > > beginning.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > ~ Neil on behalf of the PAs (Neil, Matt, Sevil, Joern)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Links:
> > > > ------
> > > > [1] https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PRL_v1.pdf
> > > > [2] https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PRC_v1.pdf
> > > > [3]
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AnalysisNote_6.pdf
> > > > [4]
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/droy1/D0-Meson-Tagged-Jets-Au-Au-collisions-200-GeV
> > > > [5]
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/D0Jets_Diptanil_PWGCPreview.pdf
> > --
> >
> > ~ Neil
>
> --
>
> ~ Neil
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.13235__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!A1lFRo0SiedhMGb3uxs9C-9jFJFojqEjnKxKzZNADDQceSyzl3n_rXZjStzbEftZCFu0J41aF0pPO9tvymR3k-iJTqk$
> [2] 
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/2018_1109_D0spectra_Note.pdf

Attachment: Screenshot 2024-12-01 at 5.21.08 AM.png
Description: PNG image

Attachment: Screenshot 2024-12-01 at 7.43.30 AM.png
Description: PNG image

Attachment: image.png
Description: PNG image