STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Veronica,

very nice proceedings.

In the interest of time, I'm sending below my comments.

- L5: , We present -> , we present

- L6: I suggest moving "at STAR" to the end of the previous sentence. 

- L9: quantum chromodynamics (QCD) matter -> quantum chromodynamic (QCD) matter (drop "s" in chromodynamics)

- L10: in heavy-ion collisions -> relativistic (or high-energy) in heavy-ion collisions

- L11: hence witness the QGP evolution -> I would add: hence witness the QGP evolution and are ideal probes of its properties. 

- L20:   that provides -> that allows us to access

- L24: by re-clustering -> by jet re-clustering

- L26:  momentum fraction of the smaller prong ->  shared momentum fraction; and I would add an in-line equation for z_g

- L28: clear shifts -> clear changes (shift is good for R_g, but z_g rather changes the shape)

- L30: is peaked near 0.1 -> steep

- L31: This -> The z_g shape

- L45: due to hot nuclear matter -> in the hot nuclear matter

- L48 EA -> EA_TPC (to be consistent with the figure)

- L54, 59: EA -> EA_BBC

- L72: add reference to the PHENIX results

- L74: the suppression -> the J/psi suppression

- L77: for several collision species - if you have space I would list them

- L80: that energy loss depends -> that the J/psi suppression depends (it's not so much of the energy loss, and J/psi dissociation in the medium)

- Figure 4 caption: at RHIC -> at STAR

- L84: for the 1S and 2S states -> for the \Upsilon(1S) and \Upsilon(2S) states

- L85: their mean values -> their R_AA values

- L85: 3S -> \Upsilon(3S)

- L90: in the medium -> in the hot and dense medium

- L95: modified -> modified in the medium

- Should explain what is p + p ⊕ Au+Au that is on the plots and in the caption. 

- L99: small systems -> small collision systems

- L104: CNM effect -> CNM effects

Cheers,

Barbara

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 6:38 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

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