STAR HardProbes PWG

["Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>]

Hi Youqi,

This looks great and should get a lot of interest from BOOST attendees. I mostly have minor comments on grammar (see below).

Thanks,

Isaac

1. "Probing the parton shower"

11. "Important" -> "complementary"

12. "about quantum chromodynamics at RHIC energy"

13. "jet and the" -> "and"

14. Remove "the"

17. This might be mistaken as meaning for a different "nSD" when I assume you mean 1st/2nd/3rd split. Maybe: "...selections and at different points in the jet splitting history" or similar.

18. For length considerations, I would recommend just saying something like "We extend the previous studies by considering the correlation...".

19. I think even the BOOST audience may not all be familiar with CollinearDrop, so I would recommend giving just a bit more detail. Maybe it can be inferred by the careful reader or just looked up, but you could hold their hand by saying "...CollinearDrop groomed jet observables, the latter of which are constructed by applying an anti-SoftDrop criterion resulting in an enhanced sensitivity..." or something like that.

20. "Such a correlation..." or "Such correlation measurements reveal"

25. Depending on the word limit, I would consider removing "and is therefore ideal for such correlation measurements" as I think it follows logically even for non-experts.

27. Since you make the comparison to the LHC starting in l. 8, you could come back to this thought and mention here that for PYTHIA we use a RHIC tune and for HERWIG we use an LHC tune, and make a point about the agreement/discrepancy in the comparison with data.

On May 10, 2023, at 10:33 AM, Youqi Song via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Nihar,

Thanks for the comments. I've uploaded a newer version on drupal. Please also find my response to your comments below.

L9-10: "Compared to the jets at the LHC, jets produced in … large
non-perturbative contributions." -> I understand what you want to say
here. But we need to be careful while mentioning this type of sentence.
It depends upon what kinematic range and what observables, etc. So it is
naive to write this sentence. Please either be specific or rephrase this
sentence.

I've made this statement weaker to "Compared to the jets at the LHC, jets produced in $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions at STAR have lower transverse momenta and are therefore more susceptible to non-perturbative effects." I think it is in line with the statement "Jets in the transverse momentum range accessible at RHIC energies are more susceptible to non-perturbative effects such as hadronization effects by virtue of their lower momenta." from this STAR paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.02114.pdf

L17-19: "We continue our exploration of multi-dimensional jet
substructure observables, measuring a newly proposed observable, the
CollinearDrop groomed jet mass, while also utilizing a novel machine
learning method, MultiFold, to correct for detector effects." -> "We
measure a newly proposed multi-dimensional jet substructure
observable—the CollinearDrop groomed jet mass. A novel machine learning
method, known as Multifold, is used to correct these observables for the
detector effect."

 I think it wouldn't hurt to have a sentence like "We continue our exploration of multi-dimensional jet substructure observables", since it connects what I have before the sentence about the previous multi-dimensional measurements at STAR, to what I am going to present. I also restructured this part a bit, since I realize that I need to describe collinear drop ("has an enhanced sensitivity to the soft radiation within jets") when I introduce it.

Best,

Youqi

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:09 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Youqi,

Please find my comments on your nice abstract.


L9-10: "Compared to the jets at the LHC, jets produced in … large 
non-perturbative contributions." -> I understand what you want to say 
here. But we need to be careful while mentioning this type of sentence. 
It depends upon what kinematic range and what observables, etc. So it is 
naive to write this sentence. Please either be specific or rephrase this 
sentence.
L10-11: "The jet substructure measurements at STAR therefore offer 
important complementary information to those at the LHC." -> "The jet 
substructure measurements in the STAR experiment, therefore, offer 
important information about different regimes of quantum chromodynamics 
at RHIC energy."
L15: "…observables, including…" -> "    observables including "
L17-19: "We continue our exploration of multi-dimensional jet 
substructure observables, measuring a newly proposed observable, the 
CollinearDrop groomed jet mass, while also utilizing a novel machine 
learning method, MultiFold, to correct for detector effects." -> "We 
measure a newly proposed multi-dimensional jet substructure 
observable—the CollinearDrop groomed jet mass. A novel machine learning 
method, known as Multifold, is used to correct these observables for the 
detector effect."

At the end, you may consider to add one sentence on what MC models you 
want to compare with the data to draw physics conclusion.


Cheers
Nihar




On 2023-05-09 23:38, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> 
> Youqi Song (youqi.song AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a review,
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/63675
> 
> Deadline: 2023-05-15
> ---
> 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