STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Andrew,

Once you implement Yi's comment, we can pass your abstract to startalk.

Regards
Nihar


On 2022-06-22 08:42, Yi Yang wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks a lot for the presentation last week. I have a better
> understanding of this analysis now.
> I have some minor comments/suggestions for your consideration.
>   L8: Quantum-Chromodynamics --> Quantum Chromodynamics
>   L12: By plotting --> From (?)
>   L14: low opening  angles -->  small opening  angles
>   L20: from both charged tracks from the Time Projec tion Chamber and
> calorimeter towers from the Barrel Electromagnetic Calorimeter. -->
> from both charged tracks using Time Projec tion Chamber and Barrel
> Electromagnetic Calorimeter.  (?)
>   L24: Move "These measurements will be compared in this talk with sim
> ulation using PYTHIA to evaluate the observable’s susceptibility to
> detector effects." to the end of this paragraph. (?)
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 2:15 AM Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> > 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 AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> > MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> > Berkeley, CA 94720
> > Ph: 510-495-2473 [1]
> >
> > Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
>  _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473