STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Hao,

Since the time is approaching, I am pushing your presentation to STAR TALK. Others will comment on your slides there.

Cheers,

Yi

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 6:41 PM Hao Huang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Sooraj and Barbara,

Thank you for your nice comments.
Sorry for my late reply. They are implemented in the v3 version.

To Barbara:

In these preliminary results, J/psi are still excluded from jet finding.

It is after Quark Matter, we use the method that Yu-Tang presented in the last collaboration meeting: J/psi is included in the jet finding,
then the jet associated with the J/psi candidate is removed when counting the number of jets.

Furthermore, the cross sections are not scaled by delta y, so the results with different y ranges coverage are compared.

In slide7, since these results are already preliminaries, I will just add the preliminary labels on these before
unfolding plots (and will update the preliminary folder). Please let me know if It is okay with you.

Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 於 2022年10月18日 週二 晚上8:22寫道：

Hi Hao,

nice slides. Please find my comments below. 

Cheers,

Barbara

- s5: I would make the scheteches small and the inv. mass figures larger. 

And a note, in principle you may have a jet around your J/psi. These are only scheteches but they suggest that the J/psi is isolated. 

As far as I understand, you remove a jet that is associated with your J/psi candidate, right ? 

- s7: I think you haven't shown the raw vs unfolded Jet activity plots outside before. Since it's corrected N_J/psi on the y axis, one can arrive at the cross-section by scaling by the luminosity - in this way in principle this plot provides a physics message and so I think it might need the preliminary label. If you just want to demonstrate the magnitude of the unfolding correction, you can e.g. normalize the distribution. Or just remove the plot if it's not crucial.

- s9, 10: I would add labels above the plots "R = 0.4" and "R = 0.6", otherwise it's hard to quickly find what's the difference between the two plots. 

- s10: can you remind me, do you scale the cross section by delta y ? If not it's fine, it's just something to keep in mind when we compare R = 0.4 and R = 0.6 results as they cover different y ranges, delta y = 0.6 vs delta y = 0.4 for R = 0.4 and R = 0.6, respectively. 

- s11: Need theory calculations -> Need theory calculations welcomed 

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:41 PM Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Hao,

   Thanks for preparing the nice slides. I sign off with a few minor comments below

S5: Might have to indicate if the J/Psi candidates are excluded from jet finding or not

S11: in PYTHIA8 than data

thanks

Sooraj

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 12:08 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Thank you, Hao.
I have no further comments.
Enjoy the conference.

Cheers
Nihar

On 2022-10-16 23:19, Hao Huang wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> Thank you for the nice comments.
> They are all implemented in the v2 version.
>
> The jet pt was not corrected in this analysis.
> The jet activity is defined in slide2, and in slide4, we use "raw jet
> activity"
> to denote that the detector effects were not eliminated at the
> beginning.
>
> Best,
> Hao
>
> Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 於
> 2022年10月16日 週日 晚上7:54寫道：
>
>> Hello Hao,
>>
>> Please find my comments on your nice presentation slides.
>> With these implemented, I sign off.
>>
>> sqrt(s) -> sqrt ($s$)
>> Slide2: "…almost-zero polarization… " -> "… almost zero
>> polarization…"
>> Slide4 : Need to define what is "jet activity"? What is "raw jet
>> activity"?
>> Slide7: I think we have not corrected the jet pT here. If so, then
>> please mention that.
>> Slide11:
>> "uncertainties are estimated" -> "systematic uncertainties are
>> estimated"
>> "PYTHIA" -> PYTHIA8
>> "A new variable for theorists to distinguish different models…" ->
>> "A
>> new observable to constrain different models…"
>> "Need more theoretical predictions," -> "Need theory
>> calculations,…"
>>
>> Cheers
>> Nihar
>>
>> On 2022-10-13 22:59, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>
>>> Hao Huang (haohuang117 AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a
>>> review,
>>> please have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61314
>>>
>>> Deadline: 2022-10-27
>>> ---
>>> 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 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://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