STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

HI Tristan,

Okay and thanks for the confirmation. 

I think it would be good to discard this one to avoid the confusion.

Cheers,

Yi

On Sun, Oct 9, 2022 at 10:30 AM Tristan Protzman via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yi, 

Yes, this entry was the first one I made which Nihar was not able to see for some reason.  I have moved this discussion to the new thread, this entry can be removed. 

Thanks,

Tristan 

On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 2:46 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Tristan,

As we all know you are still working on making final sys uncertainty and
plots.
I have just gone through your this presentation draft. Please have a
look at my comments.
Once you send us your final draft, I will send my comment again.

FYI, It is advised to follow the guidance set by IUPAC while using
symbols in scientific text:
https://iupac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ICTNS-On-the-use-of-italic-and-roman-fonts-for-symbols-in-scientific-text.pdf


Note: it should be written as $p$+$p$ and $p$+Au, etc, which is
different from the guidance. 


Slide:2
_Second bullet seems out of context here. Coupling is large at low Q^2
then why  is it relevant for the QGP and your jet anisotropy
measurements? This part is not clear here.
_ Give reference to the running coupling plot. And you could replace
with most updated version where LHC measurements (very highQ2 region)
are included if you want to start with it.
_GIve a reference or credit for left cartoon.

Slide:4
_3rd bullet: "Leads to path length…"  this is not the only effect; it
could be various other contributions like color factor, Temp of QGP,
initial gluon density, etc. But you need to mention Your motivation is
to study "path length dependence".
_ same comment for 4th bullet
_ 5th Bullet ("Both collisional and radiative") you need to provide
reference to the theory calculation for this L/L^2 dependence. These are
model calculations.

_ This slide only focus on jet and jet quenching, but it doesn't
motivate your measurement like why jet anisotropy measurement is
required? Need to include some text on it.
I suggest you need to motivate jet anisotropy before you go to any jet
analysis details like in Slide5  underlying event discussion

SLide:5
_Not clear, what is that right side plot? Is this data or MC simulation.
What is pT, of track or jet? What is Delta phi?
_"Soft processes produce a fluctuating background" what is that
background? Is it track or combinatoric jet background?
_3rd bulltet (Estimated…) it should be sub-bullet of 2nd bullet (Soft
process…)
_ what is kT?
_ Jet area -> Jet area(A)

Slide6:
_Not clear, what is that right side plot? Is this data or MC simulation?
What is pT, eta, and phi?
_"A jet finder… had scattering and other processes" ->" had scattering
and combinatorial background in heavy-ion collisions"
_2nd bullet is not required if you mention above.


SLide:7
I would suggest to use jet pT as $p_{\rm T, jet}$ throughout your
presentation.
_Used in other STAR analysis -> Proved references
_Provide referecen to ALICE measurement

Slide:8
_Move this slide or Isobar jet pT distribution after your slide14 where
you discuss about Isobar dataset. It seems the left side plot just
pop-up. This plot should be part of you results discussion even if it is
a STAR performance plot.
_"Statistically unlikely for soft processes…" Please rephrase this… not
clear.
_"May bias jet selection towards surface" Not sure the motivation of
this bullet. why it is important? You are not doing jet RAA/RCP study
and you do not study trigger jet v2 then why it is important if this jet
is trigger biased or not. These jets should be treated as inclusive jet.

Slide:9
This slide is not relevant. You could put in Backup. (A distraction)

Slide:10
_ 1st bullet: Why it is important for Dijet imbalance discussion here?
You are doing inclusive jet v_n measurement. Not clear to me.

SLide12
_"A jet in plane interacts with less medium than one out of plane" -> "A
jet interacts less with medium in plan than out of plane"
_"Since jet production is isotropic, differences in yields are a result
of medium interactions" Not sure, what you want to say here? Please
reprhase.
_" like flow" Remove this.
_ you do not discuss what is v_{2}^{jet} is?
_"Not a flow effect though!" Can you elaborate this?


SLide13
_RHIC produces a different, cooler QGP -> "RHIC produces a cooler QGP
medium than the LHC"
_"Down to 10 GeV" -> But you are not going to show down to 10 GeV. So
just remove this extra quantifier subbullet. Main bullet is fine.

Slide15:
- Jet trigger -> You don't use any jet trigger and BEMC info in your
measurement. If yes, just remove.
- Right side STAR detector, please indicate where is TPC, BEMC, EPD
- Mention kinematic acceptance of these detectors

Slide16:
_you did not discuss what is Delta_phi?
_right side plot, make title/lable of x-, y-axis bigger so that it will
be visible. And also legends in side the plot.

Slide18
Move this slide after Slide15

Slide19
_Make legend size bigger especially "STAR Preliminary" and also for
Title of axises
_INside fig, mention "red line" is fit fun.
_ inside fig, p_T^reco -> p_{\rm T, jet}^{reco} ; 12.5 -> 12.5 GeV/c
_ you did not mention anywhere before what is "R"? And what jet R you
are going to do measurement?
_ what is v_{2}^ch? Need to mention it charged jet v2. I would suggest
to use $v_{2}^{\rm ch, jet}$; And the same about v_{2}^ch,abs

Slide20:
Before slide20, you need to discuss different jet v2 (all, hard core,
matched jet) and their spectra showing side-by-side


Slie21:
_  "Jet v2 is a exciting measurement for determining the path-length
dependence of jet quenching" -> This statement is fine to motivate. But
for your conclusion this may not be relevant. Because we don't have jet
v2 measurement for different path length/system size with the same
kinematic coverage. And you did not discuss what is the strategy for
your measurement unless you plan to do the same in AU+AU.

_"Jets which are in plane interact with a different amount of the QGP
than those out of plane" Not sure how do you get this conclusion from
your measurement.


We are waiting your final preliminary plots before commenting on your
conclusion.

Cheers
Nihar








On 2022-10-06 23:17, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hi Tristan,
>
> I believe this entry is a mistake, right?
> Is it okay I discard this for now?
>
> 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]
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 1:00 AM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>
>> Tristan Protzman (tlp220 AT lehigh.edu) has submitted a material for a
>> review,
>> please have a look:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61215
>>
>> Deadline: 2023-03-26
>> ---
>> 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
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!ESEVBXpxN0tKK8Cvf0dP8EWIVykAFh_girj_u_bcezRoePuWMjshuyVzgnVopXjmq3YF-hEY4Xc3ECPZ9ZjZmSmmLg$
> _______________________________________________
> 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