STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello All,

I have had to change my abstract to meet submission requirements such as character limit.  I have updated it on the drupal page.  Please let me know if the shortened version is acceptable.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59931

Best,

Andrew

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 6:08 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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