STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Veronica, 

if you have space, I would add the reference as you refer to the results in the text. 

If you need to remove some text in order to fit it, then it's fine not to include it.

Cheers, 

Barbara 

On Mon, 15 May 2023, 20:15 Veronica Verkest via Star-hp-l, <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks again for the round of comments. I have updated my proceedings on Drupal. I still plan to edit the plots in figure 1 to show only one pt range, but I thought I'd send the draft at this stage.

Barbara--You requested that I reference the PHENIX paper when I make a comparison about the J/psi results. Since the STAR paper refers to the PHENIX results, do I still need both references, or would that be redundant? I can add it if necessary!

Cheers,

Veronica

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 7:58 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Veronica,

For the sake of time, I am passing your talk to startalk.
Please address Yi and Isaac's remaining comments and get sign off from
them.

Cheers
Nihar

On 2023-05-15 10:07, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l 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

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