Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-hp-l - Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Tong Liu for Quark Matter 2022 submitted for review

star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Tong Liu for Quark Matter 2022 submitted for review

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • To: Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu>
  • Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Tong Liu for Quark Matter 2022 submitted for review
  • Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:20:48 +0530
Hello Tong,

Please find my additional comments on your revised proceedings (Received July 10).

L54: "This gives us confidence …" -> "This corroborates…"
L56-57"…note that the Zr+Zr RAA is systematically slightly higher …" -> Within uncertainty, they are consistent with Ru+Ru and we don't need to mention "systematically slightly higher "; hence I suggest to drop this and stop at " The Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr R_AA….within uncertainty."
L62: "...at intermediate pT [5,8] " Can you please find out and unequivocally mention the pT range used in these papers for those collision systems? It would be very clear in this proceedings.


Cheers
Nihar



On 2022-07-17 23:26, Tong Liu wrote:
Hi Nihar,

Please use this link instead:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59797. For whatever reason I
created two duplicate links; sorry for the confusion.

Tong Liu
Ph.D. Student '2023
Physics Dept., Yale University

Tel: 203-435-2130

On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:56 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:

Hello Tong,

Can you please send your updated proceedings Drupal submission link?
It seems this link doesn't work from my side.
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59798

Nihar

On 2022-07-15 23:22, Tong Liu wrote:
Hi Yi,

Thanks for the confirmation. Nihar, Barbara, and Sooraj, could you
please also take a look and check for any further comments?
Thanks!

Tong Liu
Ph.D. Student '2023
Physics Dept., Yale University

Tel: 203-435-2130

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 5:01 AM Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw>
wrote:

Dear Tong,

Thanks a lot for the updated version and replies.
I don't have any further comments on your nice proceedings.

Cheers,
Yi

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Associate Professor
Department of Physics
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, 701 Taiwan
E-Mail: yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw
Tel: +886-6-2757575 ext.65237
Fax: +886-6-2747995
Group Web: http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/~yiyang [1] [1]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 12:32 PM Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu>
wrote:

Hi Yi and all,

Thanks for the comments; I have a few replies attached below. I
agree with those not listed/mentioned here and I've already
implemented them. Please find an updated version on drupal, and
see
if you have further comments. Thanks!

- L47: Just for my own education, why is it 5.1 GeV/c? Not 5.0?

The reason is kinda trivial: The pp reference we are comparing
against is binned that way. It has a bin from 4.8 to 5.1 GeV/c,
and
one from 5.1 to 6. We would’ve happily used 5 GeV if the
reference
were binned that way; and since it doesn’t make much difference
anyway, in the HG-PYTHIA simulation we went back to the 5 GeV/c
threshold.

- Is it possible to move Fig 1 after L58? It seems better (to me)
to see the descriptions before the plot.

Maybe I’m just bad at latex, but I can’t find a way to do
so…

- 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?

Yes, but the random nature of detector inefficiency means the
centrality ranking might be shuffled in real data; e.g. an events
who has 31 truth-level tracks but loses 4 of them could end up in
a
more peripheral class than another with 30 tracks but only loses
2.
Since refmult mostly relies on low-pt tracks and peripheral
isobar
events already don’t have many tracks, this effect might’ve
been
substantial already.

Tong Liu
Ph.D. Student '2023
Physics Dept., Yale University

Tel: 203-435-2130

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:58 AM Nihar Sahoo
<nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:
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


Links:
------
[1]


https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!D00DoqNoKno6xfSJTjiHvqotBsZ8HyOX-Sr9rds3_VE2DLj3cz6UxQ-r0fsiF2rntvilDvLuQcszkutadslRoM4$


Links:
------
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GsF8MBGWx_BSYP53FEU_grYYbFjnh8IQUo6sCw6I04C1U1v15lu1Tzfw3TQfRyoBQ_fGR6vj-JOilh8o1E63I1g$


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page