STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Tristan,

please find below my comments to your nice slides.

- s2: add references related to the coll. and radiative processes

- s3: the last bullet - please follow the status of Isaac's poster

- s4: define v2. I would rephrase the last bullet. The mechanisms causing v2 are different at low and high pT, but it's still v2 observable. Maybe something along the line: "non-zero v2 at high pT due to jet quenching"

- s5: change title of the slide, e.g. Event Plane Reconstruction

- s5: before run 18 -> before 2018

- s5: since you don't show STAR or don't have more details on the used detector for the jet reconstruction, I suggest to add at least information that we have the full azimuthal coverage. 

- s6: No strong momentum -> No strong p_T

- s8: you can remove "Effect demonstrated with a toy model", this information is below. 

- s11-13: as you go from slide 11 to 13, add: R=0.2 then R=0.2 and 0.4 then  R=0.2, 0.4 and 0.6, to your first bullet

- s12: "No obvious R dependence!" - make it bold or in colour

- s13: Elrage x and y-axis title size and the text font size of the plot. 

- s15: appears consistent -> consistent. You can add "in overlapping p_T region" 

- s15: you should be a bit careful here. You compare v2 to ALICE 2.76 TeV results. Then you show R_AA from ALICE for 5.02 TeV for charged jets, and compare it to our isobar single particle R_AA, with different pT coverages. The discussion may look a bit messy and far-fetched. I think it's fine that  we ask questions, maybe I would remove "Maybe – Both systems show similar 𝑅AA for mid-central even". Please try to think a bit on this, how you can make a smooth but brief story from slides 15-17 and reduce material you're showing there. Some suggestions below. 

- s16: I would suggest removing this or partially merge it with the next slide. You already have many slides, and it would be good to focus more on presenting our results. 

- s18-19: I would remove it - you advertise Isaac's poster and if he shows one then anyway we won't have physics results yet. It's fine to mention it in the conclusions, as you have now.  And your talk is 15min so it might not fit time wise. 

- Add the STAR logo on your slides. 

Cheers,

Barbara

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 12:48 PM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Tristan,

Please find my comments on your nice presentation slides.
_________
General comment/suggestion to all HP2023 and DIS2023 presenters:
1. Please make a Drupal page for all your preliminary plots and provide
us the link.
If you have already done that, please send us the link.

2. While preparing your analysis plots for "STAR preliminary" request,
please follow the guidance 1-7:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/common/Preliminary-figures
It saves our time.
_________

Please increase your slide number font size and use different color. It
is invisible.

Slide-2:

1. "The contribution of each process to jet quenching is unknown "-> But
we do know in QGP radiative process dominates over collisional process.
So this sentence probably needs to rephrase unless you want to say
somethingelse.
2. Can you give reference for collisional E_loss's  L dependence?
3. For radiative case L^2 dependence comes from BDMPS. So you need to
give reference.


SLide-3
1. In this plot, increase the X-axis title and label size (also for
Y-axis). Not visible.
2. "Central events show significant hadron suppression at high momentum"
-> "    0-10% central events show significant hadron suppression at high
momentum"
3. You need to mention what are <Ncoll> and sigma_inel^NN and their
values used for this result?

SLide-4

1. "Semi-central collisions produce an approximately elliptical QGP" ->
"Semi-central collision produces a elliptical geometry of the QGP
medium"
2.  "To use familiar language, we will report this as 𝑣2, despite jet
quenching being being distinct mechanism from flow" Not sure what you
want to say here.
3. I think you need to introduce what is v2 as 2nd order anisotropy in
this slide?

Slide-6
1. X-axis title: pT^reco -> "pT^trak;
2. X-axis: increase title and label size; put unit
3. Y-axis: increase title and label size
4. You need to mention before or in this slide what is pT?
5. "No strong momentum dependence observed "  -> "No transverse momentum
dependence of v_{2} observed at high-p_{T}"

Slide-7
1. "Measuring high 𝑝T charged hadron 𝑣2 gives us a connection to flow
measurements " Not sure what you want to say? Why only "high-pT charged
hadron v2 gives connection to flow"? Please rephrase
2. "…with resolutions …"  -> "…with resolution (R)…" here you can
introduce jet R.
3. Give STAR paper's reference to this upper v2 plot.

Slide-9:

1. "2 GeV" -> "2 GeV/c"
2. "The event is clustered into jets with the anti-𝑘T algorithm" -> You
have mentioned already in the above sentence. Drop this bullet.
3. "Δ𝑅 < R_resolution "  you need to find a better way to write this.
What is R_resolution?
4. First subbullet of last bullet _expression_: you need to mention what
are pT^measured, rho(phi), A, etc?

SLide-10:

1. Title: "Combinatorial Jet Quenching" sounds awkward. Please rephrase
this. Something like "Combinatorial jet contribution"
2.   Put this slide in backup. If somebody asks then show. Otherwise you
don't need to speak on this test.

SLide-11,12,13:
        1. Please follow the same suggestion on this fig from Slide-6
        2. "Small, non-zero R=0.2 anti-𝑘T jet 𝑣2 in isobar collisions at STAR "
-> "Non-zero jet v_{2} is observed for R=0.2 in isobar collisions" (same
for SLide12)
        3. "Like charged particle …" -> "Like inclusive charged particle…"
        4. "No obvious R dependence!" -> "No jet R dependence of v_{2} is
observed"  (Not sure why it is "Obvious"?)

Slide-14:
1. Please follow  the same suggestion on this fig from Slide-6
2. "To remove correlations by comparing the same partons, the numerator
and denominator are separate sets of events"
        Can you please rephrase this sentence to make it more clear?


Cheers
Nihar



On 2023-03-17 10:45, Tristan Protzman via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> There are still a few supporting figures I am remaking, clearly marked
> as such.  These should be done in the next day or two at the latest,
> and I will share when I have updated them.  The text and message of
> those slides however is complete.
>
> Cheers,
> Tristan
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 1:13 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/63006
>>
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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