STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Veronica,

I don't have any further comments. I sign off.

Cheers
Nihar

On 2023-05-15 05:35, Veronica Verkest wrote:
> 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