star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG
List archive
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review
- From: Brennan Schaefer <brs521 AT lehigh.edu>
- To: Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>, STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 22:37:52 -0400
Abstract:
√s =200 = √s = 200 (missing space) Fixed
Motivation:
- 7x increase in luminosity (~700M events) - I guess here you mean HT triggered data ? It's better then to provide the integrated luminosity Fixed
And I'm trying to understand 7x more. For p+p at 200 GeV we had HT0 (HT2) triggers for the published data, with luminosity of 1.36 (23.5) pb−1. You're using HT1 with 80 pb−1 (600M events) and we also have HT2 for 2017 data with 340 pb−1 (450M events). How did you get your number ? Fixed, better numbers provided by Rongrong
- The Color Octet Model is the currently leading candidate mechanism - I wouldn't fully agree with this. That depends on the pT range. NRQCD (with both color single and color octet) and CEM can reasonably describe cross sections. Replaced
I would just state that we have different models on the market: Color SIngle Model, (CGC+) Non-Relativistic Quantum Chromodynamics and (Improved) Color Evaporation model
Or replace this bullet explaining why production vs multiplicity: constrain model calculations + interplay of soft and hard processes
Replaced with generic “Study of Jpsi production vs. event activity explores correlation between hard and soft processes”
- vs. event multiplicity -> vs charged-particle multiplicity Fixed
The STAR Experiment:
- Electromagnetic Calorimeter -> Barrel Electromagnetic Calorimeter (also BEMC on the STAR picture) Fixed
- Why do you specifically mention geometric coverage in eta and phi for TOF, not for the other detectors as well ? Fixed, removed (self evident from diagram)
Event Selection:
- Add the trigger threshold in E_T Help Needed
Particle ID Cuts:
- Define nSigma_e Help Needed
Signal Extraction:
- Enlarge font of the inv. mass plot . Fixed Remove "Mult: 7-8" Fixed
- The equations are too small, you can reduce them. Fixed, enlarged
- unlike-sign pairs -> unlike-sign e^+e- pairs (same for like sign) Fixed
Cheers,
Barbara
Hi Brennan,nice poster. Below are my comments.Abstract:√s =200 = √s = 200 (missing space)Motivation:- 7x increase in luminosity (~700M events) - I guess here you mean HT triggered data ? It's better then to provide the integrated luminosityAnd I'm trying to understand 7x more. For p+p at 200 GeV we had HT0 (HT2) triggers for the published data, with luminosity of 1.36 (23.5) pb−1. You're using HT1 with 80 pb−1 (600M events) and we also have HT2 for 2017 data with 340 pb−1 (450M events). How did you get your number ?- The Color Octet Model is the currently leading candidate mechanism - I wouldn't fully agree with this. That depends on the pT range. NRQCD (with both color single and color octet) and CEM can reasonably describe cross sections.I would just state that we have different models on the market: Color SIngle Model, (CGC+) Non-Relativistic Quantum Chromodynamics and (Improved) Color Evaporation modelOr replace this bullet explaining why production vs multiplicity: constrain model calculations + interplay of soft and hard processes- vs. event multiplicity -> vs charged-particle multiplicityThe STAR Experiment:- Electromagnetic Calorimeter -> Barrel Electromagnetic Calorimeter (also BEMC on the STAR picture)- Why do you specifically mention geometric coverage in eta and phi for TOF, not for the other detectors as well ?Event Selection:- Add the trigger threshold in E_TParticle ID Cuts:- Define nSigma_eSignal Extraction:- Enlarge font of the inv. mass plot . Remove "Mult: 7-8"- The equations are too small, you can reduce them.- unlike-sign pairs -> unlike-sign e^+e- pairs (same for like sign)Cheers,Barbara_______________________________________________On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:16 PM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
Brennan Schaefer (brennanschaefer AT hotmail.com) has submitted a material for a
review, please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/63064
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] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review,
webmaster, 03/23/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review,
Barbara Trzeciak, 03/23/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review,
Brennan Schaefer, 03/23/2023
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review, Anders Knospe, 03/23/2023
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review, Yi Yang, 03/24/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review,
Brennan Schaefer, 03/23/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Brennan Schaefer for Hard Probes 2023 submitted for review,
Barbara Trzeciak, 03/23/2023
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.