STAR HardProbes PWG

[Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>]

Hi Sooraj,

L25: I did a toy simulation of detector effects by dropping 20% of charged tracks and running jet finding again, to show that the shape doesn't change.  And then I did a comparison between data and the PYTHIA 6 official embedding with no simulated detector effects.

L27: Done

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:39 PM Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

   Thanks for preparing the nice abstract. Just a couple of minor comments from me for sign off

L25: full detector simulation with PYTHIA events?

L27: showcase --> study 

Sooraj

On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 8:32 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Andrew,

Please find my additional comments.

Line#2: In title , "…GeV  in  STAR"  -> looks like there are extra space
between "GeV__in__STAR", would you please check this?
Line#19: p+p -> $p+p$ (italic)
Line#19-20: "   This talk will present  analysis done with jets
reconstructed.. " -> "This talk will present a measurement of jets
reconstructed…"
Line#22: "…approximately …" -> Not sure why it is required to mention
"approximately" here? Is there any reason?

> 8. I use N-point as it is what the attached reference i used called
> them, I think it may be better to maintain cohesion
Ok, That is fine.

> 10. By Scaling behavior, I mean the expected shape of the curve in
> that region due to theory predictions.  It is the language used in my
> reference, should I do more to introduce it here?  Perhaps I can just
> change it to curve shape.
I was trying to understand this "scaling behavior" from that paper; I
will read it again later.
At this moment you can just keep it as it is.

Regards,
Nihar

On 2022-06-18 02:37, Andrew Tamis wrote:
> Hello Nihar,
>
> Thank you very much for the feedback!
> 1. Done
> 2. Done
> 3. Done
> 4. Done
> 5. Done
> 6. Done
> 7. Done, and attached reference
>
> 8. I use N-point as it is what the attached reference i used called
> them, I think it may be better to maintain cohesion
> 9. Done
> 10. By Scaling behavior, I mean the expected shape of the curve in
> that region due to theory predictions.  It is the language used in my
> reference, should I do more to introduce it here?  Perhaps I can just
> change it to curve shape.
>
> 11. By the time of the talk, I may not have unfolding ready at a level
> that I am willing to show, but I still believe it is helpful to
> mention that I will show data, and the sentence mentioning "first
> studies" may be vague enough to not overrepresent what I will be
> bringing.  I believe that showing that the detector level data
> exhibits the same behavior to constituent pt cuts as the PYTHIA
> simulations contains useful information.
>
> 12. Done
> 13. Done
> 14. Done
> 15. Done
> 16. Done
> 17. Done
>
> I have made these changes and several others that were suggested.  The
> updated abstract is here
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/DNP-2022/Correlators-pp-Collisions-Sqrts200GeV-STAR
>
> Thank you,
> Andrew Tamis
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 6:14 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hello Andrew,
>>
>> Thank you for your plan to perform this new measurement in STAR.
>> Please find my comment and suggestions on your abstract.
>>
>> 1. Title- "Correlators in pp Collisions at √s = 200GeV from STAR"
>> I think title needs more information to convey about "N-particle
>> energy
>> correlator in jet".
>> Something like "Measurement of energy correlators within jet in p+p
>> collisions at √s = 200GeV in STAR"
>> Or "Measurement of 2-particle energy correlators within jet in p+p
>> collisions at √s = 200GeV in STAR"
>> 2. Andrew Tamis -> Andrew Tamis (for the STAR collaboration)
>> 3. "Within high energy collisions, Jets are a unique…"
>> -> "Jet is a unique…hard-scattered quarks and gluons in high
>> energy
>> collision experiment."
>> 4."…in Jet-finding…" -> "… in jet-finding.."
>> 5."..allow for increased study…" -> "…allow for detailed
>> study…"
>> 6."…the quark/gluon shower, fragmentation, and
>> the resulting final hadrons." -> "the quark/gluon shower,
>> fragmentation,
>> and the hadronization in the Quantum-Chromodynamics."
>> 7. "…within jets defines an observable that probes…" -> need to
>> introduce here what is that observable ? For example, "…within
>> jets
>> defines an observable, the N-particle energy correlator in jet, that
>>
>> probes…" ; the introduction of this observable may need reference
>> so
>> please provide reference of previous study.
>> 8. "N-point" ->  "N-particle" would be clearer.
>> 9. "re-contextualize" -> "recontextualize"
>> 10. "By plotting the 2-point energy correlator as a function of
>> opening
>> angle, one can determine the crossover region from where the scaling
>>
>> behavior of the correlator changes from scaling as a random
>> distribution
>> of hadrons at low opening angles, to scaling as quarks and gluons
>> dominated by perturbative interactions at large opening angles." ->
>> Please break this statement and paraphrase it. Not sure what is this
>>
>> "scaling"?
>> 11. Second para, I would prefer to start with "In this talk, the
>> study
>> of 2-point energy correlator in jet will be discussed using PYTHIA
>> and
>> STAR grant simulation using kinematic coverage of the STAR
>> experiment."
>> (Or Something similar to this) So that we will not be saying
>> explicitly
>> to show the results from p+p data at this moment in the abstract.
>> But at
>> the end this abstract, you could mention STAR plan to perform this
>> analysis where you could show some preliminary plots in your talk if
>> you
>> could have by that time. [I think this what we discussed at our last
>>
>> meeting]. Please let me know what do you think.
>> 12. "The correlation functions were approximated.." -> "The
>> correlation
>> functions are approximate…"
>> 13. "…y-φ space…" -> "… rapidity-azimuthal angle phase
>> space…"
>> 14. "…approximated via multiplicity histograms of the opening
>> angle…" ->
>> "…approximated by the distribution of the opening angle…
>> 15. "simulations in PYTHIA" -> "simulation using PYTHIA"
>> 16. "selections on overall" -> "selections on the overall"
>> 17. "pT" -> "transverse momentum ($ p_{\rm T}$)"
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nihar
>>
>> On 2022-06-11 02:10, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>
>>> Andrew Tamis (andrew.tamis AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for
>> a
>>> review,
>>> please have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59931
>>>
>>> ---
>>> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
>>> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov