star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG
List archive
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review
- From: Veronica Verkest <vverkest AT gmail.com>
- To: Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>, STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Cc: webmaster <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 12:09:12 -0400
Hi all,
Thank you for the helpful feedback on the poster. I have taken all comments into consideration and made several changes (the new version is on Drupal: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60189). I would like to note that I have kept the jet mass figures as they are--although they have the same physics message, it is important to show that they are indeed consistent when comparing groomed vs. ungroomed to make a statement that the mass is not modified. If this or any of the other changes are still unclear or could use revision, please let me know.
Nihar--
concerning the conclusion: the anti-correlation between hard jets in the TPC and soft EA particles in the BBC exists over a large rapidity span. By causality, this must be a correlation from shortly after the hard scattering that is not destroyed by medium or final-state effects. We can discuss this further if there are more questions.
For anyone curious, the poster session is at 13:00 ET tomorrow (Friday, the 8th) and I am presenting remotely.
Thanks again,
Veronica
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 9:11 AM Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi Veronika,_______________________________________________The poster reads good. Please find a few comments from me belowAbstract: '(as shown in ATLAS data)' - do you need this in the abstract?Introduction: significant jet modification in p+AuMethod: p_T,lead^reco is undefinedExperiment: Towers have a trigger cut off, isnt? You list the range from 0.2 GeVExperiment: Scintillator detectorJet and UE results: First bullet can be removed, as you dont show themJet mass: Jet mass need to be defined. You dont discuss about jet mass in the introduction, why it is interesting to study isnt indicatedJet 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 removedthanksSoorajOn 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 collisionsJet 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
--Ph: 510-495-2473Berkeley, CA 94720Sooraj RadhakrishnanResearch Scientist,Department of PhysicsKent State UniversityKent, OH 44243Nuclear Science Division
Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron RoadEmail: 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
-
[Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
webmaster, 07/06/2022
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
[Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
webmaster, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Barbara Trzeciak, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Sooraj Radhakrishnan, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Veronica Verkest, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 07/07/2022
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review, Veronica Verkest, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 07/07/2022
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review, Yi Yang, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Veronica Verkest, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Sooraj Radhakrishnan, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Barbara Trzeciak, 07/07/2022
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Veronica Verkest for ICHEP 2022 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 07/07/2022
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.