STAR HardProbes PWG

[Derek Anderson <derekwigwam9 AT tamu.edu>]

Hi Nihar, Yi, Barbara, and Sooraj,

Thanks for the sign-off! I've inlined a couple responses below!

> Regarding the "the TPC tracks", what in my mind is they are "the tracks reconstructed by TPC"

I see! Thanks for the explanation!

> Approaches unity, but still around 0.7, right? If you use the above statement that most of the redistributed energy is contained within R=0.5, would be better. Resolution usually means a parameter like Gaussian sigma that characterizes the smearing. Might be confusing since we didnt do any such extraction.

True! That's a very good point! I think we're safe with the text as written since it's phased as "order of 0.5 radians" (and so allows for some wiggle room)...

 -- Derek

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 4:04 AM Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:

Hi Derek, //Since the R = 0. 5 Iaa approaches unity (in sharp contrast to the R = 0. 2), we can infer that the redistributed jet energy is largely contained within a cone with a radius of about 0. 5 rad. Though, of course, this statement is quite

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

 

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi Derek,

   //Since the R = 0.5 Iaa approaches unity (in sharp contrast to the R = 0.2), we can infer that the redistributed jet energy is largely contained within a cone with a radius of about 0.5 rad. Though, of course, this statement is quite qualitative (the Iaa here have significant error bars). But it nonetheless goes to show how we can use these observables to constrain key pieces of jet quenching and motivate more precise measurements of them in the future!//

Approaches unity, but still around 0.7, right? If you use the above statement that most of the redistributed energy is contained within R=0.5, would be better. Resolution usually means a parameter like Gaussian sigma that characterizes the smearing. Might be confusing since we didnt do any such extraction. 

I dont have further comments and I sign off

thanks

Sooraj

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 1:22 PM Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Derek,

I sign off.

Cheers,

Barbara

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 4:39 AM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Derek,

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

Regarding the "the TPC tracks", what in my mind is they are "the tracks reconstructed by TPC", but if it doesn't  make sense please ignore it.

Cheers,

Yi

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 10:03 AM Derek Anderson <derekwigwam9 AT tamu.edu> wrote:

Hi Yi, Nihar, Barbara, and Sooraj,

Thanks for the feedback! I've incorporated your suggestions into the latest draft in the link below, and have included a few responses in-lined below as well.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v6_0.pdf

Responses to Yi:

> L87: TPC tracks --> the TPC tracks

I've implemented this, but just for my own education: why would it be the TPC tracks? We aren't discussing a specific set of TPC tracks, are we?

> Figure 1 and 2: I believe that you have already tried very hard on the layout. But it would be very good if they can be moved to page 4.

I was able to comfortably get figure 1 on page 3 and figure 2 on page 4. Anything denser than that ended up messing with the text spacing and layout...

Responses to Barbara:

> L106, 120: should it be p_{T,jet }^{reco,ch} or p_{T,jet }^{ch} ?

Good eye! I think it should be p_{T,jet}^{reco,ch} on L106, since we measure p_{T,jet}^{reco,ch} and then correct to p_{T,jet}^{ch} at the ensemble-average level, but L120 should definitely be p_{T,jet}^{ch}.

Responses to Sooraj:

> L127 - 129, L150: 'angular scale of intra-jet broadening is about 0.5 radians' - how do you make this conclusion? You don't show any shapes  and from the RAA it seems difficult to evaluate the size of broadening.

Since the R = 0.5 Iaa approaches unity (in sharp contrast to the R = 0.2), we can infer that the redistributed jet energy is largely contained within a cone with a radius of about 0.5 rad. Though, of course, this statement is quite qualitative (the Iaa here have significant error bars). But it nonetheless goes to show how we can use these observables to constrain key pieces of jet quenching and motivate more precise measurements of them in the future!

 -- Derek

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 10:47 AM Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Derek, Thanks for the update and taking into account the suggestions.⁠​ The figures are also better placed in the version.⁠​ Just one comment to the new version.⁠​ L 127 - 129, L 150:⁠​ 'angular scale of intreajet broadening is about 0.⁠​5 radians'

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

 

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Hi Derek,

   Thanks for the update and taking into account the suggestions. The figures are also better placed in the version. Just one comment to the new version. 

L 127 - 129, L 150: 'angular scale of intreajet broadening is about 0.5 radians' - how do you make this conclusion? You dont show any shapes and from the RAA it seems difficult to evaluate the size of broadening 

thanks

Sooraj

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 2:14 PM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Derek,

I have minor remaining comments and sign off your nice proceedings.

L58/59: 10 nb−1 should be in the same line

L106, 120: should it be p_{T,jet }^{reco,ch} or p_{T,jet }^{ch} ? 

L122: lower panel -> upper panel

L123: upper panel -> lower panel

L135:  p_{T,jet }^{reco} -> p_{T,jet }^{ch}

Cheers,

Barbara

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 7:23 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Derek and Yi,

This is the reference for Sudakov resumption.
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.094007
Derek, Please include this one as a reference.

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-08-03 22:19, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hi Derek,
>
> Thanks a lot for the updated draft. It looks very good. I only have
> some minor comments for your consideration.
>  - L8: present --> presents
>  - L12: R = 0.2, 0.5 --> R = 0.2 and 0.5
>  - L14: Remove "(ME)"
>  - L28: has finite width --> has a finite width (?)
>  - L28: any reference for Sudakov radiation?
>  - L55: ME --> Mixed Event (ME)
>  - L87: TPC tracks --> the TPC tracks
>
>  - L98: it would be good to mention that "ch" means "charged jet" even
> though it is very obvious...
>  - Figure 1 and 2: I believe that you have already tried very hard on
> the layout. But it would be very good if they can be moved to page 4.
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 11:36 AM Derek Anderson <derekwigwam9 AT tamu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We have finished resolving our internal comments, and you can find
>> the latest draft of my proceedings in the link below. I believe this
>> draft should address all of the preceding comments. Let me know if
>> there are further comments, questions, or concerns!
>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v5_0.pdf
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:33 AM Derek Anderson
>> <derekwigwam9 AT tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sooraj, Barbara, and Yi,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback! I wanted to give an update to you and the
>> PWG: we are currently working to resolve several internal comments
>> amongst ourselves. We believe this will ultimately save work for
>> everyone. Once these comments have been addressed, we'll post a new
>> draft which incorporates these internal comments as well as yours.
>> I've reached out to the QM secretariat, and they have confirmed that
>> the submission deadline can be extended out to August 15th.
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:38 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Derek, Thanks a lot for the updated version and it indeed looks
>> better.⁠​ I don't have any further comments on this.⁠​
>> Cheers, Yi On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 2:⁠​25 PM Derek Anderson via
>> Star-hp-l <star-hp-l@⁠​lists.⁠​bnl.⁠​gov ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
>> ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>>
>> This Message Is From an External Sender
>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>> Hi Derek,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the updated version and it indeed looks better.
>> I don't have any further comments on this.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Yi
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 2:25 PM Derek Anderson via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yi and Sooraj,
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback! Please find the latest draft in the link
>> below, where I've incorporated your suggestions as well as comments
>> I received offline. The text has been streamlined substantially, and
>> I opted to remove the pp and R = 0.2 AuAu acoplanarity so as to
>> emphasize the R = 0.5 result. I've also included a few responses
>> inlined below!
>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v2_0.pdf
>> [1]
>>
>> Responses to Yi:
>>
>>> - L86: Do you have any idea how "small" it should be? Any
>> reference?
>>
>> You can find some discussion of the fragmentation contribution in
>> the 2010 gamma-hadron paper [PRC 82, 034909 (2010)]. I opted to
>> remove this sentence and simply state that the hadronic subtraction
>> does not remove fragmentation photons.
>>
>>> - L126: "the details of the un folding procedure (e.g. the choice
>> of  regularization and prior), and the uncertainty on B." I don't
>> understand this sentence. What is "B"?
>>
>> B here refers to the background level of the gamma-rich triggers
>> (defined shortly after the TSP is introduced). In the interest of
>> streamlining the text, though, I opted to remove this sentence.
>>
>>> - L163 and Figure 1: the green line is the pi^0 and gamma_dir
>> +jet combined in p+p? If so, just for my own education, why don't
>> you separate them in p+p as in Au+Au?
>>
>> I added some text which I think should clarify this, but pi0 and
>> gamma-dir triggers are not combined in pp in the R0.2/0.5 plot. The
>> upper panel is the ratio for pi0 triggers in AuAu and pi0 triggers
>> in pp, and the lower panel is the ratio for gamma-dir triggers in
>> AuAu and gamma-dir triggers in pp.
>>
>> Responses to Sooraj:
>>
>>> L108: Why a different symbol for Deltaphi here?
>>
>> Typo!
>>
>>> L109: why say in the measured Delta phi distributions here? The pT
>> axis also has correction, and the pT projected measurements also,
>> doesnt?
>>
>> What I was trying to say there was just that since the delta-phi
>> measurement is 2D, we have to unfold for both the jet pT and
>> delta-phi. I've reworked this sentence to be more clear in version
>> 2. You can also find some details on the delta-phi correction
>> procedure in slide 28 of my QM presentation or in many of the talks
>> Nihar has given to the PWG:
>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonTalk_QM2022.v11_manualAnimations_0.pdf
>> [2]
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Jun2021Jetcorr.pdf [3]
>>
>>> L113: Any uncertainties or expectations on if this factorization
>> is expected to hold? It would be good to state
>>
>> If I remember correctly, we don't have any hard numbers and I don't
>> think we've checked the correction procedure _without _factorization
>> yet. Hence, I opted just to remove this statement.
>>
>>> L121: shifted and smeared to match those in the data?
>>
>> That's correct! I've reworded it to be more clear.
>>
>>> L175: why spell out trigger smeared here and not in the IAA
>> discussion?
>>
>> To be honest, I was just inconsistent. I've removed that phrase from
>> the proceedings in version 2 (all PYTHIA-8 curves are assumed to be
>> trigger-smeared).
>>
>> Common responses:
>>
>>> [Yi]  - General: the overall layout is very strange. Figure 1 is
>> on page 2, but it is mentioned on page 5. Figure 2 is in the
>> introduction part, but it is mentioned in the Results and
>> Discussion. I understand you have lots to show, so I don't have any
>> good solution for you. Probably remove one or two plots?
>>
>>> [Sooraj] It would be better to place the figures near the
>> discussion. You have Fig.1 on page 2, but its discussed only on P5
>>
>> The layout in version 1 was definitely awkward, and it was motivated
>> by trying to make room for everything. The layout in version 2 is
>> similar, but after cutting plots and text there's room for things to
>> move. Let me know if you still would like the plots to be closer to
>> the discussion!
>>
>>> [Yi]   - L34: I am a bit confused with this sentence "photons
>> scattered from energetic photons", do you mean "photons scattered
>> from energetic partons"? I probably miss something here.
>>
>>> [Sooraj] L34: 'photons scattered from energetic photons': what do
>> you mean here? do you want to say scattering of initial hard partons
>>
>>
>> Yep! That was a typo. In streamlining the text, though, this
>> sentence has been completely removed.
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:01 PM Sooraj Radhakrishnan
>> <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Derek, Thanks for preparing these nice proceedings.⁠​ Please
>> find a few comments from me below L34:⁠​ 'photons scattered from
>> energetic photons':⁠​ what do you mean here? do you want to say
>> scattering of initial hard partons L53:⁠​ Previously,
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>>
>> This Message Is From an External Sender
>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>> Hi Derek,
>> Thanks for preparing these nice proceedings. Please find a few
>> comments from me below
>>
>> L34: 'photons scattered from energetic photons': what do you mean
>> here? do you want to say scattering of initial hard partons
>> L53: Previously, (also STAR had?)
>> L58: STAR previously also has
>> L74: done in previous measurements
>> L99: pedestal
>> L108: pT^reco,ch is not defined
>> L108: Why a different symbol for Deltaphi here?
>> L109: why say in the measured Delta phi distributions here? The pT
>> axis also has correction, and the pT projected measurements also,
>> doesnt?
>> L113: Any uncertainties or expectations on if this factorization is
>> expected to hold? It would be good to state
>> L121: shifted and smeared to match those in the data?
>> L122: dont have to repeat trigger-smeared here
>> L135: the line is needlessly broken here
>> L138: It would be better to place the figures near the discussion.
>> You have Fig.1 on page 2, but its discussed only on P5
>> L166: p_T,jet^ch is also not defined
>> L175: why spell out trigger smeared here and not in the IAA
>> discussion?
>> L189: You need to have a summary for the proceedings
>>
>> thanks
>> Sooraj
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:43 PM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Derek,
>>
>> I have some comments on v1.0 for your consideration.
>> - General: the overall layout is very strange. Figure 1 is on page
>> 2, but it is mentioned on page 5. Figure 2 is in the introduction
>> part, but it is mentioned in the Results and Discussion. I
>> understand you have lots to show, so I don't have any good solution
>> for you. Probably remove one or two plots?
>> - L33: with with --> with
>> - Figure 1: Please explain the colors in the plots, dark red
>> (blue) and light red (blue) are...
>> - L34: I am a bit confused with this sentence "photons scattered
>> from energetic photons", do you mean "photons scattered from
>> energetic partons"? I probably miss something here.
>> - Figure 2 Caption: PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with
>> MONASH tune
>> - L51: [7] should be [5]  (just the number...)
>> - L56: [5] should be [6]
>> - L60: [6] should be [7]
>> - L64: at STAR --> at STAR in p+p and Au+Au collisions.
>> - L67: should mention the collision energies for both p+p and
>> Au+Au collisions here. Which year for p+p data?
>> - L71: probably you don't need "(BEMC)" since you didn't use it
>> later.
>> - L86: Do you have any idea how "small" it should be? Any
>> reference?
>> - L93: In Au+Au --> In Au+Au collisions
>> - L99: pedestat --> _pedestal_
>> _  - L103: _ Au+Au --> Au+Au collisions
>> - L116: PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with MONASH tune
>> - L126: "the details of the un folding procedure (e.g. the choice
>> of  regularization and prior), and the uncertainty on B." I don't
>> understand this sentence. What is "B"?
>> - Figure 3 Caption: PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with
>> MONASH tune
>> - L135: It is empty after "Au+Au"
>> - L157: in figure 2 --> in Fig. 2
>> - L158:  PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with MONASH tune
>> - L163 and Figure 1: the green line is the pi^0 and gamma_dir +jet
>> combined in p+p? If so, just for my own education, why don't you
>> separate them in p+p as in Au+Au?
>> - L171: In figure 3 --> In Fig. 3
>> - L175: PYTHIA-8 (MONASH tune) --> PYTHIA-8 with MONASH tune
>> - L179: figure 4 --> Fig. 4
>>
>> - L182: figure 4 --> Fig. 4
>> * If you don't have enough space, I would suggest only showing one
>> R value in Fig. 3 and Fig 4, say only showing R = 0.5 plots for p+p
>> and Au+Au.
>> - References: the journals should the standard abbreviation, like
>> PRC --> Phys. Rev. C
>>
>> 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 [4]
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:59 PM Derek Anderson via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I wanted to give a heads-up on these: I'm currently working on some
>> comments I received offline and will upload a new version of the
>> proceedings later today. The main changes will be a substantial
>> reduction and streamlining of the text so that the figures can be
>> made to be much larger.
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 9:20 PM Derek Anderson
>> <derekwigwam9 AT tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've implemented some comments received offline, and now the
>> proceedings are an even 6 pages. The new version of the proceedings
>> can be found in the link below!
>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v1_0.pdf
>> [5]
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM Derek Anderson
>> <derekwigwam9 AT tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Apologies for the extreme tardiness on this, but please find in the
>> previous message the 1st draft of my QM2022 proceedings. Currently,
>> they're sitting at 7 pages (parallel talks are limited to 6), so
>> I'll be working on cutting things down... However, the general
>> structure and details are there, so please let me know if you have
>> any comments, suggestions, or questions!
>>
>> -- Derek
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:43 AM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Star-hp-l@⁠lists.⁠bnl.⁠gov members, Derek Anderson
>> (dmawxc@⁠physics.⁠tamu.⁠edu) has submitted a material for a
>> review, please have a look:⁠
>>
> https:⁠//urldefense.⁠com/v3/__https:⁠//drupal.⁠star.⁠bnl.⁠gov/STAR/node/60365__;!!KwNVnqRv!CQALOlOwx9nJLsVVc5DR6vnxfeNkDSojxPl5XmN4KJR8n7M3oEr2jU8Yt0Luj_6PpYaSA_4sLL0cwBK1oaRQmMVblPrj4A$
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>>
>> This Message Is From an External Sender
>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>>
>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>
>> Derek Anderson (dmawxc AT physics.tamu.edu) has submitted a material
>> for a
>> review, please have a look:
>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60365__;!!KwNVnqRv!CQALOlOwx9nJLsVVc5DR6vnxfeNkDSojxPl5XmN4KJR8n7M3oEr2jU8Yt0Luj_6PpYaSA_4sLL0cwBK1oaRQmMVblPrj4A$
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l__;!!KwNVnqRv!CQALOlOwx9nJLsVVc5DR6vnxfeNkDSojxPl5XmN4KJR8n7M3oEr2jU8Yt0Luj_6PpYaSA_4sLL0cwBK1oaRQmMXx0Ozs_w$
>  _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l [6]
>  _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l [6]
>
> --
>
> 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 [7]
>
> 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 [8]
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v2_0.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!A7D_y5vIViFR70R8naXPumXZp8KVx8M1xs61VKhkYu7ZfvbVk1CV8hBW3lEoOe_kqL61QpVH_MQ7f4DCa04VJ04F$
> [2]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonTalk_QM2022.v11_manualAnimations_0.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!A7D_y5vIViFR70R8naXPumXZp8KVx8M1xs61VKhkYu7ZfvbVk1CV8hBW3lEoOe_kqL61QpVH_MQ7f4DCawfFcq9C$
> [3]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Jun2021Jetcorr.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!A7D_y5vIViFR70R8naXPumXZp8KVx8M1xs61VKhkYu7ZfvbVk1CV8hBW3lEoOe_kqL61QpVH_MQ7f4DCaxJe0WFv$
> [4]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FXE6vI6jqW4kMB5WHydjSZaaCCM7BpPE0xknTg1STobkZXBFCQp3Tb-2LSC0B3EqPL4SgF0PVLwZCst34AocRCK7nA$
> [5]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AndersonDerek_ProceedingsQM22.v1_0.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!G2VRR9EwIYx03Ufcy8CelsXri76ksc2A0BQ77pyjG5GnLBd4XELjCdk0OuNDtnKKy8FCOzmzQWEDhRmr9MfpG7f48RkxLoMH$
> [6]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l__;!!KwNVnqRv!G2VRR9EwIYx03Ufcy8CelsXri76ksc2A0BQ77pyjG5GnLBd4XELjCdk0OuNDtnKKy8FCOzmzQWEDhRmr9MfpG7f48ef1JktX$
> [7] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473
> [8]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l__;!!KwNVnqRv!A7D_y5vIViFR70R8naXPumXZp8KVx8M1xs61VKhkYu7ZfvbVk1CV8hBW3lEoOe_kqL61QpVH_MQ7f4DCaxCAXLoM$
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l__;!!KwNVnqRv!GtiNeN7QE6mmsKhKcvHMcdW0_Yns0LCv5V9A6SJjF0faq9lf2HM1vZLmOVEYbV5sxH4TSBXzE-5lULbQQeCk5AI_6BlEWg$

--

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