STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Tristan,

Thank you for addressing my comments.

Can you please point to your Drupal page putting all preliminary plots 
and preliminary request slides?

Cheers
Nihar

On 2023-03-21 21:34, Tristan Protzman wrote:
> 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