STAR HardProbes PWG

[Veronica Verkest <vverkest AT gmail.com>]

Hi all,

Thank you for all the suggestions and corrections. I have updated my proceedings on Drupal after going through comments. I just have some minor notes for Nihar and Isaac below my signature.

Cheers,

Veronica

Nihar--

Title: "Heavy flavor and high pT results from STAR " ->  "Recent heavy
flavor and high pT results at STAR"

Should my proceedings have the same title as my talk at Moriond for consistency? This was my understanding, but I can change it if we think that would be better.

Isaac--

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).

I have strongly considered this, and you know I am great with "magic image manipulation", but I struggled to figure out how to make it cute while keeping the whole caption. I will work on this and if I have something that looks better, I will update it.

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.

Okay, fair. I have re-worded, using some of your words and I think it is more explicit now.

76. Should stick with either Figure or Fig. throughout.

I did originally, but Yi reminded me that it is standard to write out the full word when it is the first word of the sentence. Of course, this is minor, anyway.

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.

I see what you are getting at here and have changed some text per your suggestions. The p+Au section is about CNM, but it starts with a detour to look at this modification and, specifically, whether it is due to hot nuclear matter effects. I do not discuss the possibility of CNM in my p+Au measurements, but I suggest the reason for possible mis-classification of centrality, and--even more importantly--I emphasize that the effects I observe in p+Au are not due to final state effects. I think it is also worth noting that the jets in my p+Au study are at higher pT values. Let me know if you still feel like this could benefit from some revision.

On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 6:37 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Veronica,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. I don't have any further comments (I think after addressing Nihar and Issac's comments are good enough!). 

Regarding the conclusion, I think Issac's suggestion is a good one " "R_{pAu} for J/\psi is in agreement with RdAu as measured in PHENIX, and consistent with models which only include CNM effects.". You can consider using it!

Cheers,

Yi

On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 11:09 AM Veronica Verkest <vverkest AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Yi,

Thanks for another thorough revision--especially concerning conclusions about J/psi measurements and CNM effects, which are not as intuitive to me as jets. I also appreciate the attention to style/structure. I updated the PDF on Drupal and in addition to your revisions, I slightly modified the sentences on lines 38 and 87. The 4-page limit is not an issue, I just like to make our plots bigger when possible. In addition, the title page photo is optional, but it does not add as many lines as its height, per LaTeX styling.

Thanks,

Veronica

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:18 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Veronica,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. I only have some follow up suggestions for your consideration. 

 - L37: I wanted to say removing "cold nuclear matter", but I typed CNM. Please use CNM here. Sorry about that. 

 - L71: I would use "showing clear CNM effect at low-pT".

 - L105: I understand there is a page limitation, but I would suggest putting the "clear CNM effect at low-pT for J/psi" in the conclusion. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 4:56 AM Veronica Verkest <vverkest AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Yi –– I appreciate all the helpful feedback! I have implemented all of your changes and I have also changed the acknowledgements section to be more specific.

I have uploaded this slightly revised version so that Nihar and Isaac can look it over at their convenience. There is a 4 page limit, so we cannot add quite too much more content anyway.

Thanks,

Veronica

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 3:38 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Veronica,

Thank you so much for the nice proceedings. I have some minor comments for your consideration. 

 - L24: Fig. 1 --> Figure 1 

 - L36: remove (CNM) 

 - L43: image --> plot 

 - L44: high-E_T --> high-transverse-energy (high-E_T)

 - L52: image --> plot

 - L54: p_T --> transverse momentum (pT)

 - Figure 3 actually indicates that CNM is observed at low pT < 3 GeV region and it should be mentioned in the text.  

 - L73: the description of the nuclear modification factor should move up to around L62, before talking about the RpA for J/psi. 

 - L75: image --> plot

 - L75: jets --> J/psi

 - L77: need to define Npart 

 - Figure 4: The left plot is RAA for J/psi, should be mentioned in the caption. 

 - L79: since you specifically describe Upsilon here, should you describe J/psi as well somewhere before it? 

 - L81: image --> plot

 - L90: Fig. 5 --> Figure 5

 - L104: should mention J/psi here 

Cheers,

Yi

 

On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 12:26 AM Veronica Verkest via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 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 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