STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

HI Brennan,

I have some suggestions for your nice slides. 

 - General: I would think it would be useful to add "how you calculate the event activity" or "how you define the event activity" in your poster.  (perhaps remove the "event selection" part? It is not that important outside STAR.)

 - Title: change the symbol of J/\psi to be the same as that in the content. 

 - Abstract: L2 : J/psi --> J/\psi (symbol)     

 - Motivation: Jpsi --> J/\psi 

 

Cheers,

Yi

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:39 PM Brennan Schaefer via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Barbara, thanks so much.  I just posted an update with most of your comments addressed.  I need guidance on a few of them (in red below).   b

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

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:24 PM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

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 luminosity 

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 ? 

- 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 model

Or replace this bullet explaining why production vs multiplicity: constrain model calculations + interplay of soft and hard processes

- vs. event multiplicity -> vs charged-particle multiplicity

The 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_T

Particle ID Cuts:

- Define nSigma_e

Signal 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 mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l