sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: sPHENIX is a new detector at RHIC.
List archive
Re: [Sphenix-l] Draft of QM2023 proceedings paper - better link and attachment
- From: "Perepelitsa, Dennis" <dvp AT bnl.gov>
- To: "O'Brien, Edward" <eobrien AT bnl.gov>
- Cc: "sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: [Sphenix-l] Draft of QM2023 proceedings paper - better link and attachment
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 18:53:22 +0000
Hi Ed,
Thanks for the nicely-written proceedings which summarize the long journey of sPHENIX, and for representing the experiment at Quark Matter. Please consider some comments from me below (also posted to Invenio).
Happy holidays!
Dennis
—
More significant comments:
Line 26-28 and also line 63: I try to be careful to stress that sPHENIX will not “only” have kinematic overlap with the LHC, but will also be able to push down into regimes very difficult to access at the LHC — for example very low-pT jets, heavy flavor, etc. You do write “complemented” on line 26, which has this meaning, but I wonder if it’s useful to spell it out more — e.g. “provide physics results that overlap with the HI physics results being generated by experiments at the LHC, *in addition to opening up new kinematic regimes where physics effects are expected to be large*“ (or similar?)
Line 36: good place to note that the 2023 commissioning run was with Au+Au? Otherwise, the reader only gets that from the abstract and, for example, the Figure labels and captions. We know it very well, but a non-RHIC reader may not.
Line 55: can I suggest a citation to our RBRC “Predictions for sPHENIX” white paper - https://inspirehep.net/literature/2662562 ? It’s a good placeholder citation for us whenever the sPHENIX physics program is mentioned
Line 67: suggest “many cold QCD measurements, such as” ? So that we do not suggest that TMDs are the entire program…
Line 84: “or triggered jet, photon, and Upsilon events in p+p and p+A collisions”
Line 87+: this is a very long paragraph. Suggest to add paragraph breaks at L102 (when you switch from calorimeters to trackers) and L121 (when you switch from trackers to global/forward detectors)
Line 94: better to write that the tile shapes are different depending on their position “in z” ? “their position in pseudorapidity” is a little funny, since the physics eta depends on the vertex, etc. (and eta is not a “position” but rather a direction)
L102: I think you mean 150% / sqrt(E), not 150% * sqrt(E) ! (Missing divided-by sign)
L140: “energy cluster from the” -> “total energies in the” (there is no clustering in that plot)
L142: “comic ray” -> “cosmic ray” :)
More mundane text comments:
Line 26: you could define “(RHIC)” here since you then use the abbreviation later
Line 49: “a depot of a large” -> “the depot of a large” ?
Line 56: similarly, do you want to define “(QGP)” here?
Abstract, line 57, 69, 70, etc.: in more physics-focused sPHENIX documents, we have a “house style” of using $p$+$p$, Au+Au and $p$+Au — probably not the biggest issue as long as you’re consistent (which I think you are)
Line 68: however, I would write $A_\mathrm{N}$ rather than “AN”
Line 77: “(TPC)” already defined at line 46. Also possible that the EMCal, HCal, etc., definitions could come earlier
Just after line 85: “is shown in figure” -> “are shown in Figure”
Line 107: “m^3” should not be italics
L122+: some funny singular/plural agreements, for example: “The MBD is a pair” (-> The MBD detectors are a pair…), “ZDC is a pair” (-> ZDCs are a pair…)
L123: “=“ -> “is”
L132: “compliment” -> “complement”
L141-144: I think it would help to insert the word “and”, e.g. “Figure X shows a) … , and b) … ”
Happy holidays!
Dennis
—
More significant comments:
Line 26-28 and also line 63: I try to be careful to stress that sPHENIX will not “only” have kinematic overlap with the LHC, but will also be able to push down into regimes very difficult to access at the LHC — for example very low-pT jets, heavy flavor, etc. You do write “complemented” on line 26, which has this meaning, but I wonder if it’s useful to spell it out more — e.g. “provide physics results that overlap with the HI physics results being generated by experiments at the LHC, *in addition to opening up new kinematic regimes where physics effects are expected to be large*“ (or similar?)
Line 36: good place to note that the 2023 commissioning run was with Au+Au? Otherwise, the reader only gets that from the abstract and, for example, the Figure labels and captions. We know it very well, but a non-RHIC reader may not.
Line 55: can I suggest a citation to our RBRC “Predictions for sPHENIX” white paper - https://inspirehep.net/literature/2662562 ? It’s a good placeholder citation for us whenever the sPHENIX physics program is mentioned
Line 67: suggest “many cold QCD measurements, such as” ? So that we do not suggest that TMDs are the entire program…
Line 84: “or triggered jet, photon, and Upsilon events in p+p and p+A collisions”
Line 87+: this is a very long paragraph. Suggest to add paragraph breaks at L102 (when you switch from calorimeters to trackers) and L121 (when you switch from trackers to global/forward detectors)
Line 94: better to write that the tile shapes are different depending on their position “in z” ? “their position in pseudorapidity” is a little funny, since the physics eta depends on the vertex, etc. (and eta is not a “position” but rather a direction)
L102: I think you mean 150% / sqrt(E), not 150% * sqrt(E) ! (Missing divided-by sign)
L140: “energy cluster from the” -> “total energies in the” (there is no clustering in that plot)
L142: “comic ray” -> “cosmic ray” :)
More mundane text comments:
Line 26: you could define “(RHIC)” here since you then use the abbreviation later
Line 49: “a depot of a large” -> “the depot of a large” ?
Line 56: similarly, do you want to define “(QGP)” here?
Abstract, line 57, 69, 70, etc.: in more physics-focused sPHENIX documents, we have a “house style” of using $p$+$p$, Au+Au and $p$+Au — probably not the biggest issue as long as you’re consistent (which I think you are)
Line 68: however, I would write $A_\mathrm{N}$ rather than “AN”
Line 77: “(TPC)” already defined at line 46. Also possible that the EMCal, HCal, etc., definitions could come earlier
Just after line 85: “is shown in figure” -> “are shown in Figure”
Line 107: “m^3” should not be italics
L122+: some funny singular/plural agreements, for example: “The MBD is a pair” (-> The MBD detectors are a pair…), “ZDC is a pair” (-> ZDCs are a pair…)
L123: “=“ -> “is”
L132: “compliment” -> “complement”
L141-144: I think it would help to insert the word “and”, e.g. “Figure X shows a) … , and b) … ”
On Dec 18, 2023, at 11:29 AM, Edward O'Brien via sPHENIX-l <sphenix-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The draft of the proceedings paper for my talk at QM2023
is attached. It is also available on Invenio:
https://sphenix-invenio.sdcc.bnl.gov/me/requests/e29b510a-fe41-467e-8ca7-405191a72786
Both the pdf, and tex file will be available when you go to the
link and choose "Record"
The conference organizers tell me that the QM23 proceedings
submission website will be open until 12/25. If you would like
to comment please post them on Invenio before that date.
As you will read, the proceedings submission is essentially a
copy of my QM2023 talk with some additional text.
Thanks.
Ed
<sPHENIXOverview_QM2023_draft.pdf><sPHENIXOverview_QM2023_draft.tex>_______________________________________________
sPHENIX-l mailing list
sPHENIX-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-l
-
[Sphenix-l] Draft of QM2023 proceedings paper - better link and attachment,
Edward O'Brien, 12/18/2023
- Re: [Sphenix-l] Draft of QM2023 proceedings paper - better link and attachment, Perepelitsa, Dennis, 12/20/2023
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.