STAR HardProbes PWG

[Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>]

Hi Veronika,

   The poster reads good. Please find a few comments from me below

Abstract: '(as shown in ATLAS data)' - do you need this in the abstract?

Introduction: significant jet modification in p+Au 

Method: p_T,lead^reco is undefined

Experiment: Towers have a trigger cut off, isnt? You list the range from 0.2 GeV

Experiment: Scintillator detector 

Jet and UE results: First bullet can be removed, as you dont show them

Jet mass: Jet mass need to be defined. You dont discuss about jet mass in the introduction, why it is interesting to study isnt indicated 

Jet mass: second bullet: where do we see this consistency? 

Activity vs jet yield: First bullet: Can this bias on the EA selection be quantified from these distributions? Does it explain the observed modification?

Activity vs jet yield: Second bullet: Is the same observed also for EA_BBC selected events?

Conclusion: EA anti-correlated?

Conclusion: Second bullet: where do we see this?

Conclusion: Third bullet: Is there a strong centrality dependent modification for the jet mass in A+A collisions?

Conclusion: last bullet: the part after hyphen can be removed 

thanks

Sooraj

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:06 PM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Veronika,

nice and clear poster.

Please see my comments below. With these addressed I sign off.

Introduction:

- Yet ATLAS (right) and PHENIX observed significant jet modification -> Yet ATLAS and PHENIX observed significant jet modification in p+Au collisions

Jet mass

- Consistent with QCD predictions and STAR pp data - you don't have on the plot neither QCD predictions nor pp data, right ?

Since conclusions from the top and bottom plots are the same, I would suggest replacing one of them with a plot showing a comparison between the p+Au and pp results. 

And I guess the conclusion on the consistency with QCD predictions is based on the p+p paper ? If so, I would suggest moving the reference closer to the statement, now it looks that the plot is taken from this paper. 

Activity-dependent jet yields

- Right plot: the legends and labels are very small, please enlarge them. 

 = 200 GeV = 200 GeV -> = 200 GeV (the energy is doubled)

Cheers,

Barbara

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 1:03 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Veronica,

Please find my comment and suggestions on your nice poster.

Introduction:

_Yet ATLAS (right) and PHENIX ..   ->  ATLAS and PHENIX … (please
provide references to these results)
_"WHy ?" Remove it

_"p+A collisions thought too small for QGP formation "  Need to mention
what that is "small"? For example, system size, initial energy density,
etc

_"How does the hard scattering in an event affect event activity (EA)
and underlying event (UE) at mid-rapidity?" -> You need to mention what
is EA and UE.

_Just after the above statement.
This ATLAS plot does not fit to the physics message.

Experiment and Event Activity:

_Mention what is eta?
_"|η|<1, " - > "|η| < 1 " (similarly below) _ "Charged tracks …" and
"Neutral tower…" in box; please include in the TPC and BEMC bullets (no
need to have a separate box)
_"the inner BBC signal" -> what is that signal? ADC/hit/ etc.


Jets and UE measurement method:

_R=0.4 -> mention what is R?
_ Need to mention what are  phi_lead, phi_trig, phi_UE, eta_lead?
_what is p_{T,lead}^{reco}? Mention it.

Jet mass as a function of EA:

_Define and mention what is jet mass?
_Consistent with QCD predictions and STAR pp data  -> "Consistent with
QCD predictions" or "STAR p+Au data and QCD predictions are consistent"


Activity-dependent jet yields:

_"The distribution of EA_BBC is inversely correlated to leading jet pT"
and also its bullet -> Please rephrase this; not clear


Conclusion:
"Dependence of soft particle production on the initial hard scattering"
-> How do you draw this conclusion?
"Indicates EA vs. Q2 correlations from early time effects" -> Not sure,
How do you draw this conclusion?
"Jet quenching in p+Au collisions disfavored—no sign of final state hot
nuclear matter effects" Very strong statement. I would suggest to drop
this or mild this statement. Not sure how do you get this conclusion?


Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-07-07 15:30, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Veronica Verkest (vverkest AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a
> review,
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60190
>
> ---
> 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