STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Veronica,

Due to limited time, I am fine with this version.
However, please consider to modify the followings.
With implementing this I sign off.
Please send updated version (with Yi's comments implemented)  soon, then 
we can push it startalk.

Conclusion:

"not jet quenching" -> "not" no need to make it bold.

"Jet quenching in p+Au collisions disfavored in STAR p+Au" -> I would 
rephrase this as
"Jet quenching in p+Au collisions disfavored in STAR p+Au in this 
measurement"

Thank you
Nihar


On 2022-07-07 21:39, Veronica Verkest via Star-hp-l wrote:
> 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 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l