STAR HardProbes PWG

[Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com>]

Thank you, Nihar. Looking forward to the GPC formation after any further comments from Isaac and Qian.

~ Neil

On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 7:56 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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