STAR HardProbes PWG

[Veronica Verkest <vverkest AT gmail.com>]

Hi all,

I appreciate the quick responses. I have updated the poster again here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60189

Thanks,

Veronica

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 12:42 PM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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