STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Veronica,

Sorry for my late comments (see below). In the interest of time I didn’t read 
through Nihar’s comments yet and focused on getting you feedback as quickly 
as possible, so there may be some comments that overlap with his.

Thanks,
Isaac

Grammar/style/semantics/typos/nitpicks

8. "hot, dense"
9. "(QGP), which is created in heavy-ion collisions."
10. "witness" -> "probe"
17. This sentence is both a bit of a non-sequitur and slightly repetitive. I 
would remove the heavy-ion connection since by construction you won't be 
following it up for the rest of this section, and you already mentioned it in 
different words in the previous sentence/section. And the "described by pQCD" 
has also been mentioned in the previous section. So I think the sentence as a 
whole can be removed. You can then start with e.g. "Substructure observables 
characterize jet formation and evolution, from the initial hard-scattered 
parton, through the radiation shower and eventual hadronization that results 
in a jet."
25. "first three SoftDrop splittings, following the hard prong in each 
case,"; \sqrt{s}
Fig. 1: I would recommend -- since you don't discuss the jet pT dependence 
and the plots are currently pretty small -- using some Powerpoint/MS 
Paint/etc. magic to remove the 30-50 GeV panel in each figure (keeping the 
legend). In the interest of time, if you push a draft which doesn't have this 
implemented, I will still sign off. But in that case, maybe you could just 
briefly make some comment in the text about the pT dependence.
35. This wording here is unclear (to me). I think you're saying that pA 
allows us to test the null hypothesis (I haven't heard of a null experiment 
before) that actually some of the final state effects we see in AA are not 
due to QGP. This could be clarified in the text.
39. "Both RHIC and LHC experiments have..."
42. "elucidate the cause" -> "elucidate the picture"
47. To save some space, I'd recommend "...low-EA events that is similar for 
both..." Then you could remove "Additionally,...recoil-side".
53. "particle"
56. "hardness" -> "p_{T}"
59. Either "harder (softer) scatterings" or "higher (lower)-p_{T} jets"
63. "collisions"; "inclusive yield of J/\psi" (and remove "for J/\psi" in the 
next line).
65. Remove "for this measurement"
Figure 3. "For several collision systems at RHIC"; also, inconsistent script 
vs. upright on the "R" from R_{p/d/AA} throughout. I think it should be a 
script R (and also a script "N" in "N_{part}" and the "A" in "A_{J}").
71. "modification of the J/\psi yield due to CNM effects observed..."
74. If space is needed I would remove this sentence. You could replace it 
with something like "From the comparison of J/\psi modification in Figure 3, 
it is unclear whether the difference between small systems and heavy-ion 
measurements is due to the different collision geometries or initial energy 
densities."
76. Should stick with either Figure or Fig. throughout.
77. "participating"
85. "exhibit significant suppression" or similar.; I would recommend to save 
space, "Furthermore, we observe sequential suppression of excited states"
89. "lower-p_{T} jet"
92. "matched" -> "hardcore"
Figure 5. "central Au+Au and..."; upright "J" for consistency.
99. "Substructure"; "from STAR in p+p collisions"

Reference 3. Not sure what's happening here with the 2015392 year-page number 
mashup. Maybe the reference manager didn't understand the different 
formatting for this PLB than the others?

Physics/structure

17. I know what you mean here, but it should be specified that this good 
description is for the hard sector.
19. I don't think it's necessary to mention SoftDrop at this point since we 
can get the jet splitting history without it. So I think you can drop this 
sentence, just being careful to stitch things together nicely. My suggestion 
for doing that, but up to your preference: (after the description of the 
parton shower) "The SoftDrop grooming algorithm1* is widely used because it 
takes advantage of the approximate angular ordering inherent in a QCD shower 
by reclustering using an angular-ordered algorithm, and drops softer 
splittings which are more difficult to describe with pQCD."
*I would also de-emphasize the software aspect here in favor of the 
algorithmic aspect.
23. It should be mentioned somewhere that SD is dropping softer radiation. 
For example, as in the proposed re-write for l. 19.
28. If there is space I would mention that this first split zg is 
DGLAP-like.; "smaller fraction of the hard parton's momentum".
40. I think this is misleading since the suppression in central events could 
be interpreted that way, but not the enhancement in peripheral events.
41. I don't think you need the sentence "In turn,..." since you're only 
talking in these proceedings about one paper (yours) that follows up on these 
studies to determine whether there is jet quenching due to QGP in small 
systems. I would recommend replacing the "consistent with...hot nuclear 
matter" statement with a statement about the potential misclassification in 
centrality, motivating jet-EA studies. Then it would also flow nicely into 
the sentence I recommend for l. 42's comment.
42. The sentence starting "The plot on the..." is somewhat of a run-on. I 
would give EA its own sentence before you start on the plot. This could be 
something like "Similar to the centrality measure used by ATLAS and PHENIX in 
the jet yield modification studies, at STAR we define event activity as..."
70. The conclusion here that there are "clear CNM effects at low-p_{T}" is 
interesting since you were just talking about the possibility of hot nuclear 
matter effects on jets in small systems. Wouldn't that be a possible effect 
at low-pT contributing to the suppression we see? I understand that if you 
compare to models that only have CNM effects, this is good evidence to 
support the only-CNM claim, but in the text the models aren't mentioned so it 
seems like a conclusion coming straight from the data. Maybe a short way to 
add this in would be: "R_{pAu} for J/\psi is in agreement with RdAu as 
measured in PHENIX, and consistent with models which only include CNM 
effects."
105. "depends on energy density"

> On May 13, 2023, at 10:52 AM, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l 
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hello Veronica,
>
> Please find my comments on your nice proceedings below.
> General:
> As it is for "the STAR collaboration"; I would suggest to use "We" instead 
> of "I" at all places.
>
> Title: "Heavy flavor and high pT results from STAR " ->  "Recent heavy 
> flavor and high pT results at STAR"
>
> Abstract:
> "I show yields of heavy flavor particles from Au+Au and p+Au collision 
> systems and their correlations with jets and bulk particle 
> production…system sizes and centralities."
> ->
> I would suggest 1-2 sentences and concise abstract. Details you can put 
> inside the proceedings.
>
> "In these proceedings, We present an overview of recent measurements from 
> heavy flavor and jet production in Au+Au and $p$+Au collisions at 
> $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 200 GeV. We also discuss the recent development on jet 
> substructure measurements in $p+p$ collisions at STAR."
>
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> L8: "Hard probes such as heavy flavor particles and jets …" -> "Hard 
> probes, such as heavy flavors and jets, are tools…"
> L9: "…matter known as the Quark- Gluon Plasma (QGP)." -> "…matter—known as 
> the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP)." [use em dash here]
> L11: a vacuum environment -> in vacuum ;  by perturbative QCD -> by the 
> perturbative QCD
> L12: "Upon understanding the formation of these hard probes in a vacuum 
> (p+p) and assessing the cold nuclear matter (CNM) effects in slightly 
> denser collisions (p+A), …" -> "Upon understanding of the heavy flavors and 
> jets production in vacuum (in $p+p$) and cold nuclear matter (CNM) in 
> $p$+Au collisions, …
> L14 with hot nuclear matter. -> with the QGP.
>
> 2. Measurements
>
> L17: "In addition to being described by pQCD, p + p collisions are useful 
> as a reference to quantify modification of probes in heavy-ion collisions." 
> -> "Jet production in $p+p$ collisions are well studied using pQCD 
> calculations and hence used as a reference for heavy-ion collisions."
> L18: "Jet substructure observables are one such method …" -> Jet 
> substructure observables are used to characterize …"
> L19:"The SoftDrop package1 is a jet grooming package that provides…" -> 
> "The SoftDrop grooming technique in jet measurement provides…"
>
> L22: SoftDrop then re-cluster -> The SoftDrop, then, re-clusters…
> L24: "z_g"  and "R_g" -> you have not defined yet.
> L25: from  √sNN = 200 … -> at  √s = 200 GeV in $p+p$ collisions at STAR
>
> L27: " split (black) …third splits (red and blue, respectively). " ->" 
> ..split…third splits."  [not needed in the text as already discussed in 
> Caption]
> L32-33: "…and, as they evolve in time, they tend toward harder and narrower 
> emissions." ->"…and they tend toward harder and narrower emissions as time 
> evolves."
> L36: " that there are no hot nuclear matter effects …" -> that no QGP 
> effect presents in $p$+A collisions …;
>      CNM -> the CNM
> L38: "All effects of increased collision system density not due to hot 
> nuclear matter are considered CNM effects. " -> Not clear. Please rephrase. 
> For example "Collision systems density"  what density? Energy density, 
> particle density…etc.
> L45: 200 GeV p+Au collisions -> 200 GeV in p+Au collisions
> L54: "rapidities as a function of the transverse momentum (pT) of a 
> triggered leading jet" -> "rapidities for the three the transverse momentum 
> (pT) bins of a triggered leading jet"
> L63: in STAR p+Au -> in $p$+Au collisions, at STAR,
> L64: a charm-anticharm bound state; Fig. 3 shows the nuclear modification 
> factor for this measurement
> -> a charm and anti-charm quarks bound state; Figure 3 shows the nuclear 
> modification factor, RA(p)A,
> of the $J/\psi$ as a …
>
> L66: "The nuclear modification factor, RA(p)A,…" -> The nuclear 
> modification factor in different collision systems …
> L68" R_pAu -> The R_pAu
>
> L74: "  I investigated …" -> Drop this sentence, not needed for such short 
> proceedings.
> L75: "I present…" -> Not need; It is not adding any info here.
> L79: "…               energy loss depends on system size rather than 
> collision geometry." -> "energy loss depends on the energy density rather 
> than the initial geometry."
>
> L80: a bottom-antibottom bound state  -> a bottom and anti-bottom quarks 
> bound state
> L82: a hot  enough medium will cause these bound states to “melt” -> a 
> hotter medium melts these excited states resulting the suppression in their 
> yields
> L85: All states are significant suppression, which is larger in more 
> central events.
> -> All states show significant suppression in central relative to 
> peripheral collisions.
> L88: STAR performed an analysis to investigate modification of jet 
> substructure … ->  The STAR collaboration reported the modification of jet 
> substructure in Au+Au collisions; …
>
> Conclusion:
> L99: were presented for STAR p + p -> were presented in $p+p$ collisions, 
> at STAR, …
> L100: in the absence of hot medium -> in the absence of the QCD medium. [It 
> can be hot or cold like in p+A and A+A]
> L100-103: "In p+Au… only at low-pT." -> Too long sentence. Please break it.
>
> I would suggest you can add one sentence as outlook for STAR Run23 and 
> Run24 data taking plan for hard probes measurements.
>
>
> Fig.2 caption: rapidity as a function of leading jet pT -> rapidity for the 
> three leading jet pT bins.
> Fig.3 caption: for several species  -> in different collision systems
> Fig.4 caption: in multiple species -> in different collision systems
> Fig.5 caption: jets in central p + p and p + p ⊕ Au+Au collisions. -> jets 
> in central Au+Au and p + p ⊕ Au+Au collisions.
>
>
> Cheers
> Nihar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2023-05-12 21:54, Veronica Verkest via Star-hp-l wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> In the hustle of recent submissions, I just wanted to send a reminder
>> about my Moriond proceedings (here:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/63649). The due date is the
>> 15th, which is Monday. I welcome and appreciate any feedback!
>> Thanks,
>> Veronica
>> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:36 PM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l
>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>> Veronica Verkest (vverkest AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a
>>> review,
>>> please have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/63649
>>> Deadline: 2023-03-25
>>> ---
>>> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
>>> webmaster@http://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