STAR HardProbes PWG

[Tristan Protzman <tlp220 AT lehigh.edu>]

Hi Nihar, Barbara, 

Thank you for your careful review and comments.  I have also received feedback from the Lehigh group after my practice talk yesterday afternoon which has been addressed.  A new draft has been uploaded, find my comments below.

Cheers,

Tristan 

Nihar's Comments

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.

Changed to suggest that measuring v2 can help distinguish between competing models of jet energy loss
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.

Both references added


SLide-3
1. In this plot, increase the X-axis title and label size (also for
Y-axis). Not visible.

Changed
2. "Central events show significant hadron suppression at high momentum"
-> "    0-10% central events show significant hadron suppression at high
momentum"

I would like to leave this as central, since all centralities show suppression and I would like to draw 
3. You need to mention what are <Ncoll> and sigma_inel^NN and their
values used for this result?

This plot was shown at QM22 by Tong without those values, I will work with Tong to find what was used and have them ready in backup at a minimum

SLide-4

1. "Semi-central collisions produce an approximately elliptical QGP" ->
"Semi-central collision produces a elliptical geometry of the QGP
medium"

I would like to leave approximately, since it is important to remember that the higher order fluctuations drive it away from elliptical
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.

Changed to "Though the language is the same, high 𝑝_T 𝑣_2 is driven by different effects than low 𝑝_T flow"

3. I think you need to introduce what is v2 as 2nd order anisotropy in
this slide?

Added.

Slide-6
1. X-axis title: pT^reco -> "pT^trak;

Changed
2. X-axis: increase title and label size; put unit

Changed
3. Y-axis: increase title and label size

Changed
4. You need to mention before or in this slide what is pT?

Changed first occurrence 
5. "No strong momentum dependence observed "  -> "No transverse momentum
dependence of v_{2} observed at high-p_{T}"

Changed

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

Added explicate reference to low pT flow, drawing the connection that there is going to be a transition from the flow dominated v2 to quenching dominated flow
2. "…with resolutions …"  -> "…with resolution (R)…" here you can
introduce jet R.

Added
3. Give STAR paper's reference to this upper v2 plot.

I don't believe this result has been published yet

Slide-9:

1. "2 GeV" -> "2 GeV/c"

Added
2. "The event is clustered into jets with the anti-𝑘T algorithm" -> You
have mentioned already in the above sentence. Drop this bullet.

I am making it clear that the event is clustered twice
3. "Δ𝑅 < R_resolution "  you need to find a better way to write this.
What is R_resolution?

Clarified with formula for \Delta R
4. First subbullet of last bullet _expression_: you need to mention what
are pT^measured, rho(phi), A, etc?

Added

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.

Changed and moved to backup

SLide-11,12,13:
        1. Please follow the same suggestion on this fig from Slide-6

Changed
        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)

Changed
        3. "Like charged particle …" -> "Like inclusive charged particle…"

Changed
        4. "No obvious R dependence!" -> "No jet R dependence of v_{2} is
observed"  (Not sure why it is "Obvious"?)

I would like to keep this as there is no obvious effect looking at the plot, and on the next slide we quantify this

Slide-14:
1. Please follow  the same suggestion on this fig from Slide-6

Done
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?

Removed, and I will spend time explaining this clearly in the talk 

Barbara's Comments

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

Added

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

Will do!

- 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"

Rephrased to "Though the language is the same, high 𝑝_T 𝑣_2 is driven by different effects than low 𝑝_T flow"

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

Done

- s5: before run 18 -> before 2018

Changed

- 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. 

Changed, showing STAR as well now.  I couldn't make a graphic I liked demonstrating the EPD usage

- s6: No strong momentum -> No strong p_T

Changed

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

Removed

- 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

ADded

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

Bolded

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

Changed

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

Added

- 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. 

I removed that line, and found a more accurate comparison from ALICE to use instead.  I also removed the claim of similar RAA, since that wasn't accurate looking at the correct comparison 

- 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. 

Agreed, removed

- 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. 

Removed for now, I'm following Isaac's status as well.  I had a little extra time in my practice talk so I'll keep track of what happens.

- Add the STAR logo on your slides. 

Added

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 12:06 PM Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

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