---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-03-30

From AUC: 

-----------------------------------------------

From Rutgers: 

-----------------------------------------------

From UPJS: 

From Fudan:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-01-29

Comments from Saskia: 

I found some comments from previous meetings that were not yet implemented.

Left-over comments from previous meetings:

5. We suggest more discussion of the significance of the parameter in xT scaling.  Also, Xin suggested a fit to the J/psi data to extract the parameter from these data.

Figure 9 – It is still difficult to distinguish the data points in the black/white version of the paper.  We suggest make symbol sizes bigger (including in the legend), use some open symbols, remove error bars from symbols in the legend, separate out the trigger efficiency into a separate panel, and zoom in on the y-axis for the panel containing the remaining efficiencies.

--------------------------------
For the xT scaling, I suggest the following edits (starting on page 11).

“The scaling behavior of particle production with xT = 2pT/root(s) is characteristic for production through fragmentation due to hard scatterings. The xT scaling (E d 3σ dp3 = g(xT )/sn/2 ) has been tested for pions, proton and J/ψ for various collision energies [is 26 the ref where this was first tested?], where n is a free parameter which can be interpreted as the number of active partons involved in hadron production. Figure 15 shows the xT dependence of protons, pions, and J/ψ.  The J/ψ measured in 510 and 500 GeV proton-proton collisions has been fit to extract the parameter n, with n=5.x+-0.x.  This value is consistent with n=5.6+-0.x from the previous STAR measurement [26], as well as other previous measurements measurements [27, 33–41] at high-pT .  The broken scaling at low-pT is due to the onset of soft processes [26]. “

(Note. It’s not broken at low xT, but low pT!)

In addition, I focus on the conclusions and introduction below.

Conclusions:

Page 11, line 44 – Remove “On the other hand”
-> “The ICEM calculation is also consistent….”

Page 12 – 
Perhaps replace the last sentence with the following.

“Since the J/psi production mechanism is not yet fully understood, it is important to continue confronting the models that incorporate the most current understanding with new data.  The results presented in this paper, together with cross-section measurements at other energies and measurements of the polarization, contribute to the goal of better understanding the production of heavy quarkonium.”

Introduction:

Can you add a reference for the sentence on lines 10-13?

We discussed the occurrence of the CSM in the introduction, even though we don’t compare our data to this model.  Perhaps the discussion can be reformulated a little.  One point is that the evolution of the CSM calculations to better fit collider-energy data (such as CDF) led to the conclusion that higher-order alpha_s processes contribute.  With higher orders included it could better describe the overall cross sections; however, it was still deemed as incomplete when confronted with CDF data that could separate out the feed-down contributions to the J/psi cross sections.  Perhaps, including a little bit of historical perspective in the introduction better makes the point of the importance of confronting models with data, and how our understanding of the production of heavy quarkonium has changed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-01-23

==> Page 1 <==

Title: move “at mid rapidity” before “in proton-proton collisions”.

Abstract:

- Somewhere better to clarify “inclusive” J/psi mesons which contain prompt and non-prompt contributions.

• The last sentence may be improved a bit with more information. I need to think a bit and may come up a suggestion later. 

Introduction

• line 10, spell out RHIC as it firstly appears, or change to “high energies”.
• line 15, add references after “mechanism”
• line 23, “its suppressed production”, suggest to change to “the modification to its production”. The production may not just suppressed in HIC.
• line 25, add references at the end of the sentence.
• line 29-31, “can be calculated analytically using the well-understood perturbative approach.” This reads too strong. First is this with regard to the partonic gg->ccbar cross section, or p+p->ccbar cross section? The later one involves PDFs which is non-perturbative. Even for partonic cross section, the calculation should have also higher order corrections, which I am not sure we can say “well-understood”. And I would suggest to remove analytically. I would suggest to simplify it as “… can be calculated using the perturbative approach.”
• line 33, “… is far from unambiguous” reads too negative. Suggest to rephrase as “.. remains a challenge.”
• line 59, “x” in italic, and need to define “x”.
• line 69-71, remove “low pT region” and “high pT region” in parentheses. pT regions are clear enough with the listed values. (I have other suggestions to the later section names associated with these words).
• line 71-end, Suggest to add a sentence about the feed down contribution from bottom feeddown.

==> Page 2 <==

- line 9-13, as I described during the meeting, the sentence doesn’t give much reasoning why like that, and we don’t come back to in the result and discussion section. I would suggest to either drop the sentence or rephrase to some general statement.

• line 16-17, I don’t quite understand the sentence. Do you mean “… help constraint the feed-down contribution from excited charmonium states.”
• line 26-27, “one of the most powerful … detectors …”. I think in scientific papers, we don’t need such words. The referee is certainly from another large experiment and may feel a bit over exaggerating about this. In addition, honestly, I would feel STAR is powerful in measuring heavy-ion collisions while there are limitations in p+p collisions.
• line 29-32, the place of describing VPD detector is a bit strange here. I suggest to move this to somewhere later in the paragraph.
• line 38, “and charge (q)”. We can measure charge sign, but not sure if we can distinguish charge numbers. momentum in some sense is a distinguishable variable to separate different charge signs, so maybe just drop it.
• line 69, I would suggest to just use “J/psi->mumu” instead of “Low transverse momentum region”
• line 74-77, I would suggest to expand this part about the datasets, trigger and event selection. Please separate out the trigger part first, and I believe there are more in the trigger definition rather than just two MTD hits requirements (e.g. VPD coincidence etc.) Please also add a couple of sentence describing the event level selection (e.g. vertex selection etc.)
• line 89-91, please add some explanation why need the smearing.
• line 95, please add reasoning for pT>1.3 GeV/c.

==> Page 3 <==

• line 13-15, if the MC was tuned to match the data, then this statement is not so particularly necessary.
• line 15, better to add some description on how the fit was performed.
• line 15, the number and error here are not consistent with those shown in the figure.
• Fig. 1, you may reduce the axis label size slightly, enlarge the X-axis title size a bit, and enlarge the size of the text inside the figure. And maybe reorganize the location of the legend a bit.
• Fig. 1 caption, “The mu+mu- invariant mass spectrum in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 500 GeV. The red solid line depicts a fit using a Gaussian function (blue histogram) for J/psi signal and a fourth-order polynomial function (red dashed line) for background.”
• line 29-30, as described in my previous email, please add some reasoning for this.
• line 59, “up-to a factor 10”, reads a bit negative. Please clarify the pT region and may add that the difference is getting much smaller at high pT.
• line 65-66, “VPD requirement”, “vertex finding” these are related to my suggestion before to add some details on these in dataset subsection.
•  

==> Page 4 <==

• Fig. 2, not need of (a) and (b) under each panel.
• Fig. 3, the legend texts can be made clearer though some of them are in the caption. You may remove “channel” from first line and “efficiency” from the “Vertex finding”. May add a couple of more words for “MTD”. And the ordering may be re-organized so they more or less follow the same order in terms of their magnitude in the figure.
• line 23-26, does the same-sign pair distribution reproduce the background well, even in high pT bins? I am wondering about there will be some finite correlated background similar as in dielectron analysis. Secondly, why trying an even higher order polynomial? why not using lower order ones like 2nd? Finally, I don’t quite understand the logic here, particularly the first part of the sentence “since …..”.

==> Page 5 <==

• Fig. 4, since you have some room, maybe enlarge the text size a bit. You may remove “J/psi” from the text in each panel.
• line 2-4, may add a couple of sentences on how these were estimated.
• line 14-16, similarly may include how the estimation was conducted.
• line 29, “… trigger efficiencies .. negligible”. but previously in line 14-16, you said the MTD trigger uncertainty is about 3.6%.

==>Page 6 <==

• line 9-11, too many significant digits for the final results. should be 10.2 +/- 0.9 +/- 1.6 +/- 1.1 and 67 +/- 6 +/- 10 +/- 7. Please see the PDG book for some details.
• line 12, suggest to replace with “J/psi -> ee”
• line 18, I believe the trigger is on the transverse energy.
• somewhere you may add a reference to previous 200 GeV paper
• formula 4, isn’t it a natural log which should be “ln” then? And please use “\ln” in the equation so it will display as non-italic.
• line 32, “theoretical”, I wouldn’t call it just theoretical since many parameters need to be calibrated. You can call it “expected”
• line 33, “ln”
• I think you also have an adc0 cut, right?
• line 42-44, for non-trigger electron, the description seem to be too brief. I remember you don’t require any BEMC match, so TPC track only?
  

==> Page 7 <==

• Table I and also to Table II on page 10: as in the meeting note, I would suggest to report the cross section values with absolute stat and sys uncertainties. Please drop unnecessary significant digits. You can use scientific notation so you don’t end up with several zeros for large numbers. For total cross section, may be better to list also out the polarization envelope. Not sure if it is better to included as one uncertainty term in total cross section or may be listed as a separate column.
• Also on these two tables, the units on the first row have some issues. for pT it should be GeV/c to be consistent. For cross sections, should be (pb/(GeV/c)^2). You may also add some spaces so the texts in the first row have clearer separation between columns.
• Fig. 7, we discussed in the meeting, please keep the Y-axis range for the insert panel large enough to include also negative entries. You may move some of the text above the inserted panel into the frame so you can enlarge the size a bit. If possible, I would also suggest to lower the Yaxis lowedge for the main frame too. Now the high mass data points are too close to the axis and I can see there is at least one negative entry that is not shown in the figure.
• FIg. 7, try your best to enlarge the text size a bit. You may want to check with the journal requirement to see whether it is sufficient.
• line 5-6, suggest to remove “and can be described by an exponential function.” Not clear this is given. Since you will describe the fit procedure later on. This part is not needed here.
• line 18, 3.9\sigma
• formula 5, on the numerator, maybe add a superscript “raw” to be clear on this is raw counts.
• line 45-47, “gamma” -> “photon conversion”, “…. based on detector simulations.” this is very vague. Please add a few more to describe how the simulation studies were carried out.
• line 57, add “at high pT” after “lower detection efficiency”.

==> Page 8 <==

• Fig. 8, please try to use the similar style as in Fig. 7 for this one. I see the histogram lines and marker lines are thicker here. 
• Fig. 9, we discussed during the meeting. I would not recommend to add scales to some of the data points. but instead you may separate the figure into two panels, maybe just separate the trigger efficiency out as it also spans a much larger range. Then for the rest in one panel, you can keep the Y-axis range limited hopefully different groups can be visually separated. Please try to use open markers for some of the groups. In the legend, I don’t think you need the lines along the maker sign in front of each line.
• Fig. 10, try to enlarge the text and marker size a bit more. bottom panel Y title, may try #varepsilon so the symbol shown up to be consistent with the text.

==> Page 9 <==

• line 8-12, as I mentioned in previous email, what about the trigger efficiency uncertainty, since it seems have a sizable impact on the efficiency, I wonder the associated uncertainty may not be completely negligible, particularly comparing to the currently quoted ~5% systematic uncertainty.
• line 27-29, 10.7 +/- 0.5 +/- 0.4 +/- 0.9. The second number looks good.
• line 34-37, similar to line 8-12.
• line 19, “ICEM of directly produced J/psi..” I chatted with Ramona about this and she confirmed that in the ICEM since they can count for various spin states, the calculated J/psi cross section should be the prompt J/psi cross section including feed-down from excited states.

==> Page 10 <==

• Table II, similar comments as to Table I
• Fig. 13, I wonder whether there are any LHC experimental results. I wonder there should be from pretty much all 4 experiments? e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1557.pdf from CMS. Please do a survey to add these latest measurements.
• line 1 started from the last line in previous sentence. We discussed this during the meeting, We need to consider the polarization envelope and also in my view, the goodness of agreement between data and model is similar for ICEM and CGC+NRQCD.
• line 11-13, I would suggest to move this sentence to page 9 line 46 when we first present the two results together. Please also comment on the cross section difference in two rapidity windows.
• The xT scaling paragraph need to be improved. It is better to start with a couple of sentences for motivation. And sounds like n is a free parameter for fit? So we’d better present the fit results with uncertainties then.
• line 23, need references.

==> Page 11 <==

• I think it is better still to present a comparison or ratio plot for non-prompt J/psi cross section w.r.t the total inclusive. Maybe one approach is to add the nonprompt J/psi cross section from FONLL calculation in panel (a). But please feel free to comment.
• line 9-14, all the numbers, as commented before, please drop some significant digits.

==> Page 12 <==

• references:
• [1], in the second paper missing “.” after “et al”
• [7], drop the arXiv numbers
• [8],[9] et al. these experimental references, usually we still include the first author, XXXX et al.(XXX Collaboration),
• [21], NIMA abbreviation try to be consistent with others

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2019-01-15

Xin's comments:

1) J/psi->mumu analysis, the efficiency*acceptance correction is applied candidate-by-candidate. I may miss it but can you elaborate the reason why this has to be done in this way? Do you have the comparison between this way and the way when applying the average efficiency in each bin.
2) J/psi->ee analysis, when changing adc0 from 290->320, how large difference is the J/psi reconstruction efficiency? How large does this variable affect the measured Psi(2S)/J/psi ratio? This part should be included in the total systematic error for Psi(2S)/Jpsi ratio
3) On the J/psi->ee results listed in Table II in the paper, how are the pT position values calculated? I find the position values in different pT bins look quite odd. e.g. in first pT bin, the pT value is a bit lower than the center value (4.25), fine; in the second bin, it is larger than the center value (4.75), and in the third bin, it is smaller again; in the fourth bin, it is significantly smaller than the center value (5.66 vs. 5.75), also in later bins, the values look all fluctuating a lot….. The pt positioning is not described in the technical note. Please clarify.

>> The bin position is determined by the method in this paper (http://inspirehep.net/record/374024?ln=3Den). 

      Also I am also curious how these values are calculated in the J/psi->mumu results though the values don’t show any obvious behavior yet.
4) On the model comparison, I wonder do you have calculations from any CS model? In paper manuscript page 2, line 9-13, we argue the precision measurement to test CSM vs. NRQCD. Would be nice to have the CSM calculation so we can draw any conclusion here.
5) On the x_T scaling test in Fig. 15, how are the n parameters determined? Are they from a fit or inspired by some models?  

(I got kicked out of BlueJeans at this point, so I missed the discussion of items 1 and 2).
3. Qian will look at the pT values for each bin.
4. Perhaps the discussion of the CSM in the introduction should be modified, since it is not one of the models that is compared to data in the paper.  (Let’s wait on modifying the introduction until we have refined the conclusions.)
5. We suggest more discussion of the significance of the parameter in xT scaling.  Also, Xin suggested a fit to the J/psi data to extract the parameter from these data.

On the figures:
Insert of Fig. 7 is not extending into the negative y-axis range, as we discussed before.
Figure 9 – It is still difficult to distinguish the data points in the black/white version of the paper.  We suggest make symbol sizes bigger (including in the legend), use some open symbols, remove error bars from symbols in the legend, separate out the trigger efficiency into a separate panel, and zoom in on the y-axis for the panel containing the remaining efficiencies.

Some comments on the text:
Page 2, line 98 – Modify the text that justifies the DCA<3 cut based on “rejecting secondary decays”.  You don’t want to give the impression that we reject a significant fraction of the B decays. 
Pages 8-9 – In the list of sources of systematic uncertainty, include estimates for each source in the same way that the mu+mu- analysis does.

Tables I and II – Show absolute values of the statistical and systematic uncertainties (rather than the fractional values), remove the column for the total uncertainties, and add a column for the polarization envelope.

Conclusions on page 11:
In the comparison to theoretical models, the statement of “tension at low pT” cannot be made given the large polarization envelope at low pT.
We also discussed refining the last statement of the paper.   People should think about this in conjunction with the introduction.

When we are satisfied with the text, presentation of results, and conclusions, then we can move on to refine the abstract and introduction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-01-08

We discussed analysis-related questions that Xin sent by email.
PA's had responded to the questions, but just a few remained ambiguous.  
Two of these had homework for the PA's.

1.  (From the muon decay channel analysis note)
On the question of the two different PYTHIA8 simulations that were used, what were the specific parameters varied?  Please list them to help us judge whether these two are sufficient for the systematic uncertainty estimate.

>> The PYTHIA setting: PYTHIA Setting.pdf

2.  (From the electron channel analysis note)
For the variation of the adc0 cut from 290->300, this was only a 7% variation.  Xin suggested trying another cut with a larger variation (25-50%).

For the figure with the theory comparisons, we agreed to use the version with the FONLL correction included, and that it would help to add to the discussion a more quantitative statement about the magnitude of the effect.

Follow-ups on the quality of figures:
Figure 9 - The symbols are still not distinguishable in B&W version.  Try using some open symbols and making the symbols even larger.
Figure 10 - The axis labels/titles should be made a bit bigger
Figure 7 - The axis labels on the insert should be bigger, the y-axis should extend into the negative region to show all of the data points, and the 4.4 should not be partially covered (it could be removed altogether). 

If I have forgotten anything, please amend.

During the coming week, the GPC will start to focus on paper text and conclusions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-01-04

The replies to Xin's comments: 
   - Dimuon: Replys_to_Xin_dimuon.pdf
   - Dielectron: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Reply_2_xin.pdf

The updated notes: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018-12-17

Participants: Saskia, Rosi, Zaochen, Petr, Qian, Te-Chuan, Yi
Presentation: Te-Chuan (theory correction):  https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/tchuang/Presentations/MTD/Run13_pp_500GeV/GPC/TeChuan_Jpsi_20181217.pdf
                     Zaochen (Code QA): https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/CodeQA_Reports_psn0709_Zaochen_1.pdf
Note (Saskia): 

Here are the notes for Dec. 17.

- We discussed Te-Chuan's analysis to correct theory calculations to be inclusive J/psi, rather than prompt only.

- There was some concern about "correcting" theory, but some expressed that it would be preferable to compare the same quantity as the data in the theory-comparison figure.  The text would have to clearly state what was done.

- Te-Chuan showed 2 methods, one based on measurements and one on FONLL, with consistent results.  There was a suggestion to incorporate the PHENIX measurement at 510 GeV.  Although the rapidity range for the PHENIX measurement is different, their paper shows that their data fall directly on a \sqrt(s) dependence of the feeddown fraction measurements (Fig. 9).  If the rapidity distribution for prompt and feeddown J/psi is similar, it won't have a big effect on the fraction.
The bbbar cross section that PHENIX extracted from their feeddown fraction is slightly on the high side of the FONLL calculation, but consistent within the large statistical uncertainties (Fig. 11).

- There was also a question about including the uncertainties of the feeddown fraction in the corrected theory curves.  That was not yet done, and perhaps we could get away with just quoting it in the text where we describe what was done.

- Te-Chuan will update us on his results by email.

- Zaochen did a very comprehensive code QA and found issues in a few of the plotting macros not being up-to-date.  The PA's agreed to update these soon.  Since the figures may evolve over the next few weeks, the macros will be checked again at the end of the GPC process. 
He also suggested to back up root file on HPSS, so that the results could be reproduced if something happened to the files on disk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018-12-10

Participants: Saskia, Xin, Rosi, Zaochen, Petr, Qian, Te-Chuan, Yi
Presentation: Qian Yang (Dielectron channel): https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/J%3Apsi_GPC_Dec-03-2018.pdf
Note (Saskia):

Today we discussed the presentation by Qian Yang on the J/psi results from the e+e- decay channel, the comparison of the two measurements, and the comparison of both results to theory.

- Systematic uncertainty due to internal conversions (4%):  make sure this is discussed in the text.

- Fig. 11 - mention these are the uncertainties on the fiducial cross section

- Page 7 - In the discussion of what is included in the efficiency in Fig 10 (lines 24+), mention the momentum resolution and additional pT smearing.

Fig. 13 - The systematic uncertainty on the ratio includes just the uncertainties on the yield extraction, since all other uncertainties cancel in the ratio.   Perhaps such a statement could be added on page 9 around line 41.

- Theory discussions - 
- Check the CEM papers whether other charmonium-state feed-down is included in the J/psi cross section.  We suspect that perhaps the Color Evaporation Model includes these, but not sure.
- Theory does not include B decays.  Xin proposed to "correct" theory calculations for this contribution (see Xin's email dated 12/3/2018).  PA's agreed to try this, and we will discuss it after such a figure is made.
At the very least, there should be a discussion of how much such contribution may be.

- We discussed the differences in the CM energy and rapidity range for the two measurements compared in Fig. 14.
We can either correct the measurements for the differences (in particular for the rapidity range), or we can discuss the magnitudes of the expected differences in the text.  PA's will try to make a figure that takes differences into account, and we will take a look.

Schedule for next steps:
1.  Dec. 17 
- Discuss remaining analysis issues as well as the presentation of analysis details in the text
- Update on code QA

When details of analysis are settled

2.  Discuss presentation of results, quality of figures, and physics conclusions

3. Abstract and Introduction

4. English QA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018-12-03

Participants: Saskia, Xin, Rosi, Zaochen, Petr, Qian, Te-Chuan, Yi
Presentation: Te-Chuan Huang (Dimuon channel): https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/TeChuan_Jpsi_20181203.pdf
Note (Saskia):

Today we discussed the presentation by Te-Chuan on the mu+mu- decay channel.  We will continue with Qian's presentation next time.

Below is a list of some initial comments from the discussion today.  If you have additional comments on the current draft, please send them to the email list.

- Consider changing the title to something that specifies that the differential cross sections are only as a function of pT and not rapidity; something like 
"Measurements of the transverse-momentum-dependent cross sections
of J/Psi production .... at mid rapidity with the STAR detector"
It may be ok as is, since pT- and y-dependent cross sections are sometimes referred to as "doubly differential".  Check how this is commonly done in PRD.

- Additional pT smearing is mentioned in the context of the mu+mu- analysis on line 85.  It should also be mentioned in the context of the e+e-, with a statement about whether it is quantitatively consistent with the additional smearing used in the mu+mu- simulation.

- This additional smearing should be mentioned when discussing Fig. 1, as the mass peak differs substantially from PDG value. Something like, "the mass line shape agrees with simulation, including the momentum smearing effect."

- Fig. 4 - the y-axis label should reflect that these are "weighted counts"

- For Figs. 5 and 11, remove the "total" error, as this assumes the statistical and systematic can be added in quadrature.

- Figs. 6, 12, and 14 - Can we include the common luminosity uncertainty somehow in the plots, indicating that it is an overall normalization uncertainty (which is different from the other systematic errors)?  The concern is that theorists may take the data from the plot without considering this additional uncertainty.

In the discussion of the theory comparisons, it should be made clear to what degree the comparison is expected to agree.  What is the difference that is allowed for, due to feed-down from B -decay?  Are the excited-state decays included in the models?