STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Tong,

Can you please send your latest proceedings link if you have implemented 
Yi's comment?

Thank you
Nihar

On 2022-07-05 11:46, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hi Tong,
>
> Sorry for the very late reply and thanks a lot for the reminder (I
> almost forgot this, very sorry about that).
>
> Thanks a lot for the very nice proceedings.
> I only have some very minor comments/suggestions for your
> consideration.
>    - L7: in our community --> in heavy-io community (is it better?
> Totally up to you.)
>    - L9: Do you need this bracket? I would remove it.
>    - L13: high pT --> high transverse momenta (pT)
>    - L14: low transverse momenta (pT) --> low pT
>    - L25: Add some references from the BES program?
>    - L33: It would be good to specify the collision systems, say
> Isobar, Au+Au, d+Au, and Cu+Cu.
>    - L34: In section 3 we --> in section 3, we
>    - L35: distribution --> distributions
>    - L36: ratio --> ratios
>    - L42: in [2] --> in Ref. [2]
>    - L44: from [3] --> from Ref. [3]
>    - L47: Just for my own education, why is it 5.1 GeV/c? Not 5.0?
>    - Is it possible to move Fig 1 after L58? It seems better (to me)
> to see the descriptions before the plot.
>    - L48: the quality -> the high statistics (? Up to you)
>    - L53: [3] [4] [5] --> [3 - 5]   (I think you can just use \cite{a,
> b, c}
>    - L55: Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr RAA results --> The RAA results from Ru+Ru
> and Zr+Zr   (Or "The Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr RAA results)
>    - L67: in [6] --> in Ref. [6]
>    - L73: I would use "0.2 GeV/c" (same unit as others).
>    - L74: 5 GeV --> 5 GeV/c    (not 5.1 GeV/c ?)
>    - L77 - 79: Just for my own education, I think the RAA results
> (data points in Fig.1) are efficiency-corrected, right? Then, why do
> you need simulation including detector effects?
>    - L88: in [10] --> in Ref. [10]
>    - is it possible to move Fig.2 after L93? (up to you, too)
>    - L101: I am not sure if the proceedings from the same conference
> is a good reference. It is probably okay to link to his presentation?)
>
>    - L101: Isobar spectra --> the Isobar spectra
>    - L114: similar comments as "Haojie's proceedings"
>    - L119: "trigger" particles --> "triggered" particles
>    - L120: trigger particles --> triggered particles
>    - L131: Add a reference of the STAR forward upgrade (from previous
> QM?)
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 12:09 PM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hi Barbara, Nihar & all,
> >
> > I know there are still a few weeks before QM proceedings are due,
> > but could you please take another look at my latest version to see
> > if there are more comments? I would like to move forward with it and
> > get it out of the way as fast as we can. Thanks!
> >
> > Tong Liu
> > Ph.D. Student '2023
> > Physics Dept., Yale University
> >
> > Tel: 203-435-2130
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:59 PM Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Barbara,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments. I have a few responses to some of them; I
> > have applied the rest of them to the updated version on drupal.
> >
> > L57-58: "note that the Zr+Zr RAA is systematically slightly higher
> > due to smaller Npart" - this is not very clear, do you mean that the
> > average Npart in a given centrality bin is smaller for Zr+Zr compare
> > to Ru+Ru ?
> >
> > Yes you’re right. I added “at the same centrality bin”.
> >
> > L104: medium production depends -> medium properties depend (? not
> > fully sure what you wanted to say here)
> >
> > What we show in this chapter is the soft particles, which are
> > produced by QGP hadronization. So the yield presented here is the
> > “medium production”.
> >
> > L131: η coverage -> the η coverage
> >
> > I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to say… my original says
> > “the extended eta coverage offered by the new STAR forward
> > upgrade”
> >
> > L133: studies to understand -> studies that help to understand
> >
> > That sounds a bit weird to me... I changed it to “studies that
> > improve our understanding on ”
> >
> > Tong Liu
> > Ph.D. Student '2023
> > Physics Dept., Yale University
> >
> > Tel: 203-435-2130
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 5:36 AM Barbara Trzeciak
> > <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tong,
> >
> > Nice proceedings.
> > Please see my minor comments for your consideration below.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Barbara
> >
> > L29: "from different systems" -  it sounds redundant here
> > L31: evolves -> evolve
> > L33-34: hadron spectrum at 200 GeV -> hadron spectra at sqrt{s_NN} =
> > 200 GeV
> > L48: above 5.1 GeV -> above 5.1 GeV/c
> > L49: 5% centrality bins -> 5%-wide centrality bins
> > L55: of collision system -> of the collision system
> > L57-58: "note that the Zr+Zr RAA is systematically slightly higher
> > due to smaller Npart" - this is not very clear, do you mean that the
> > average Npart in a given centrality bin is smaller for Zr+Zr compare
> > to Ru+Ru ?
> > L61: effects becomes -> effects become
> > L65: up to 80% -> from 60% up to 80% peripheral events
> > L65:  and deviates ->  and deviate
> > L66: deviation at - deviation in
> > L67: HG-PYTHIA method -> HG-PYTHIA toy model
> > L75: >5 GeV charged particles -> charged particles with pT > 5 GeV/c
> > FIg. 1 caption: above 5.1 GeV -> above pT of 5.1 GeV/c
> > Fig. 1 caption: HG-PYTHIA simulation modified from [6], see text for
> > detail ->HG-PYTHIA simulations modified from [6] are presented as
> > shaded bands, see text for detail.
> > L82:  of medium production ->  of the produced medium (?)
> > L85: the raw ratio -> the ratio of raw yields
> > L86: reveal quite some physics -> provide physics information
> > Fig 2 caption: collisions, binned in centrality -> collisions as a
> > function of pT, in different centrality classes
> > L88: PID -> particle identification
> > L92:  a larger Npart and Ncoll ratio ->  larger Npart and Ncoll
> > ratios
> > L93: in more peripheral collisions -> with increasing centrality
> > L96: are higher than that -> is higher than that
> > L97: across centrality -> across centralities
> > L103: medium production depends -> medium properties depend (? not
> > fully sure what you wanted to say here)
> > L106: wouldn’t -> would not
> > L108:  54 GeV -> \sqrt{s_NN} =  54 GeV
> > L131: η coverage -> the η coverage
> > L133: studies to understand -> studies that help to understand
> > L135: rely on -> depend on
> > L137: initial geometry -> the initial geometry
> > L138: a “suppression” -> maybe: R_AA < 1
> > L139-140: remove "comparisons of"
> > L140: particle yields -> particle yield ratios
> > L140: system -> systems
> > L141: a centrality-dependent ratio -> centrality dependence
> > L146: was found -> is found
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 12:01 AM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l
> > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nihar,
> >
> > Thanks to the comments, I have implemented them and posted them on
> > drupal. The link is kinda funny probably because I created a
> > duplicate entry, so please find the pdf here:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QM22_Proceeding_TongLiu%20%281%29_0.pdf
> > Please responses to some your comments below:
> >
> > Line#25:  "dependencies" on what? like system size, Temperature,
> > muB. Need to
> >
> > mention what are those?
> >
> > The dependencies I’m mentioning are system size and collision
> > energies, which I talk about in the next sentence. I also rephrased
> > the next sentence a bit to make it more coherent.
> >
> > 
Line#63 ":..note that the Zr+Zr RAA is
> >
> > systematically slightly larger due to smaller Npart,"-> I can see
> > both
> >
> > Ru and Zr RAA are consistent within uncertainty. Hence this
> > statement is
> >
> > not correct. Please remove this.
> >
> > I see what you’re trying to say, but the uncertainty you see here
> > is mostly systematic, hence common across isobar species, and should
> > be canceled when comparing Ru against Zr, as is done in section 3.
> > Therefore one should only focus on the central value here.
> > Line#150: "…found, photonuclear processes with high multiplicity
> > .." ->
> >
> > "found in the photonuclear processes with high multiplicity …"
> >
> > The latter part of the sentence is talking about future
> > measurements. That being said, since you removed the “high
> > multiplicity” part in Sec. 4, I removed the corresponding
> > statement here as well– though we need to confirm with Prithwish
> > and Nicole.
> >
> > Line#151: "…help us understand …" -> "…help us to
> > understand…"
> >
> > I believe the “to” is optional here, and since we are short on
> > space anyway I suggest we leave it as is.
> >
> > Tong Liu
> > Ph.D. Student '2023
> > Physics Dept., Yale University
> >
> > Tel: 203-435-2130
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 11:05 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > Hello Tong,
> >
> > Please find below my 1st round of comments on your nice proceedings.
> >
> > Line#8: To address these open questions we -> "To address these open
> >
> > questions, we…"
> > Line#12-16: Can you combine these three sentences into one and avoid
> >
> > repeating "we"?
> > Line#19-23: "Lastly, we present…at RHIC" -> "In addition, we
> > present the
> > measurement of particle production and long-range di-hadron
> > correlations
> > in photonuclear processes in gamma+Au events using ultra-peripheral
> > Au+Au collisions at RHIC." Something like this. To make it concise
> > in
> > the abstract.
> >
> > Line#25: "Since the discovery of the quark-gluon plasma(QGP)"  Give
> > a
> > reference here.
> > "dependencies" on what? like system size, Temperature, muB. Need
> > to
> > mention what are those?
> > Line#29: "RHIC doesn’t only provide us with a large and flexible
> > range
> > of energies.."-> "RHIC provides a wide range of collision energies
> > and
> > variety of system size covering…"
> >
> > Line#31: "Further, ensembles with…" -> "Furthermore, the collision
> >
> > system with …" end with a period.
> > Line#34: "jet quenching and flow " are not medium properties.  Like
> >
> > "flow" and "collectivity" are the same properties of QGP.
> > Please rephrase this sentence,
> > LIne#37:-38 "For the first two sections, we focus on …spectrum"
> > Not
> > needed and you can drop it. As you going through Section-2 and -3
> > individually in next sentences.
> > Line#38: "...the high-pT spectrum and show the nuclear modification
> > (RAA)… hard partons in the medium. " ->"… the high-pT charged
> > hadrons
> > spectra and compare their nuclear modification factor (RAA) in
> > different
> > collision systems".
> > LIne#40: "Then in section 3…" -> "In Section 3,…"
Line#42:
> > "Finally in
> > section 4,…" ->" Finally, in section-4,.."
> >
> > Section-2 title:
> > I would not say " hard partons" because we probe hard partons using
> > jet
> > measurement, here we measure "inclusive charged hadrons".
> > Line#47: "…event and …" -> "…event, and …" Line#51:
> > "…high-pT partons
> > …" -> "…high-pT charged hadrons …" (for reason see
> > above)
Line#54: "…we
> > are able to perform…" -> ", we perform…"
> > Line#55: "&" -> and
Line#63 ":..note that the Zr+Zr RAA is
> > systematically slightly larger due to smaller Npart,"-> I can see
> > both
> > Ru and Zr RAA are consistent within uncertainty. Hence this
> > statement is
> > not correct. Please remove this.
> > Line#69: "However, our data in peripheral collisions show that RAA
> > starts  to decrease again beyond 60%,
> > " -> However, the values of RAA in Isobar collisions with Npart< 20
> > starts to decrease up to 80%,…" LIne#71: "Currently our suspicion
> > is
> > …event selection and geometry biases.." -> I would not mention as
> > a
> > suspicion. How about. "The event selection and geometrical biases
> > may
> > contribute to this deviation at peripheral events in Isobar
> > collisions
> > like demonstrated by the HG-PYTHIA method in …"
Can you please
> > inform
> > about this HG-PYTHIA?
> > LIne#85: …more direct properties …" Can you please mention what
> > are
> > those "direct properties" of the medium? Line#94-96: This statement
> > needs a citation.
> > Line#101-102: "We hope to study the ratio…" -> "We plan to study
> > the
> > ratio…"
> > "…extract more kinetic and thermal …" ->"…extract the kinetic
> > and
> > thermal…"
> > Line#110: "…pushing our limits to the low end"  Not clear; what is
> > that
> > low end ? You need to mention.
Comment: In this section-4, it
> > would be
> > better if you could introduced what is gamma+A event is.
> > LIne#119: "For this we form pairs by selecting charged …" -> "For
> > this,
> > we…'
> > In Eq.1, you need to mention what is "n"? Like different order of
> > harmonics   Line#130: "within the measurement uncertainties" ->
> > "within
> > the uncertainties." ( all uncertainties in experiments are measured
> > uncertainties)
> > Line#131: "High activity events will be explored in future. " Not
> > required.
> > Line#133: "…    Run-25 data on √sNN = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions,"
> > ->
> > "…Run-25 data in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200
> > GeV,"
Line#137:"…       the
> > QGP in small and medium systems, " -> "…the QGP in different
> > collision
> > systems,"
> > Line#138: "…    are shown " -> "are discussed."
> > Line#140: "…    driven by Npart,  regardless of initial
> > geometry;…" ->
> > "…driven by Npart regardless of initial geometry." (Finish this
> > sentence
> > here)
> > Line#140-142: "..although in peripheral …       .“suppression”
> > is observed ."
> > -> Start a new sentence here. "The observed suppression in
> > peripheral
> > events in isobar collisions may be due to the event selection and
> > geometry bias in the measurement."
> > Line#150: "…found, photonuclear processes with high multiplicity
> > .." ->
> > "found in the photonuclear processes with high multiplicity …"
> > Line#151: "…help us understand …" -> "…help us to
> > understand…"
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nihar
> >
> > On 2022-06-01 00:07, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > > Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > >
> > > Tong Liu (tong.liu AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a
> > review,
> > > please
> > > have a look:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59798
> > >
> > > ---
> > > 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
>  _______________________________________________
> 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