star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG
List archive
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review
- From: "Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
- To: "Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT)" <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>
- Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:42:00 +0000
Hi Priyanka,
On point 1., this was a rewrite of the first bullet of the Motivation section. (“…length and area of homogeneity of emission source” -> “emission source’s length and area of homogeneity”).
I’m satisfied with your other responses and with the above rewrite, I sign off.
Enjoy the conference!
-Isaac
On Jun 12, 2023, at 5:26 PM, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl> wrote:
Hello Isaac,
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I tried to address most of those and implemented on the updated version.
I have some confusion and comments regarding the points you mentioned.
- "emission source's length and area of homogeneity" as it currently reads like "area of X" where X is "homogeneity of emission source", which is confusing. -> I am not sure which line you indicated
- In the caption you say "expected shape of C(k*) but don't define k* until the next section. Maybe just move that first bullet from Methodology over to this section, just after the third bullet. Starting: "C is measured..." now instead. I understand things will have to move around a bit but hopefully you can make it work. --> Due to space constraints, introduction to k* is difficult in the "Motivation" section, so I changed the fig 2 caption from C(k*) to correlation function
You say "Expected shape", but is it only the shape that we care about and not the magnitude of correlation?
--> We surely care about the magnitude of the correlation function but that may varry with different dataset but I tried to indicate the fact that depending on the potential, correlation between a pair of particles could be different which means shape of the correlation (repulsive or attractive) Figure 3 --
Where is the "femtoscopic correlation" depicted in this figure? --> This figure shows the definition of k* for a pair of correlated particles, that's why I mentioned "femtoscopic correlation" on the caption. If it is creating confusion, then I am okay to remove the phrase
Rest of the points --->>> all are updated
Please let me know if you have any other comments.
Regards,Priyanka
From: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 8:56 PM
To: Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>; STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for reviewHi Priyanka,
Sorry for the delay. Below are some small comments I have for your poster.
Thanks,Isaac
General comment: it's a bit on the wordy side. One example is the Motivation bullet: "One could interpret..."; this could be drastically shortened to e.g. "R ~ extent of interaction between charm, light quarks in a medium" [after in the first bullet saying "length, R,..."]. There are a few other places where this is possible, which would allow you to increase the figure, caption, and equation sizes, making everything more readable and more inviting from a distance. Just take a look at whether you see any other possibilities for abbreviating/trimming.
Abstract: "in relativistic..."; "Quark-Gluon Plasma"; "and the interaction of charm..."; "in 2014"
Motivation:"Figure - 1" -> "Figure 1" (and throughout)."emission source's length and area of homogeneity" as it currently reads like "area of X" where X is "homogeneity of emission source", which is confusing.
"of correlation function, C"
Figure 2 --"for vacuum medium" -> "in the vacuum"In the caption you say "expected shape of C(k*) but don't define k* until the next section. Maybe just move that first bullet from Methodology over to this section, just after the third bullet. Starting: "C is measured..." now instead. I understand things will have to move around a bit but hopefully you can make it work.You say "Expected shape", but is it only the shape that we care about and not the magnitude of correlation?
Methodology:Figure 3 --Where is the "femtoscopic correlation" depicted in this figure?
D-hadron femtoscopy:"D^\pm-\pi"Figure 4 -- To me that doesn't look like a deviation at all if I respect the statistical and systematic uncertainties. Why not use the same-sign plot from slide 21 of the talk you link, where the data disagree more strongly with only Coulomb, and the LL curve is more distinct from the Coulomb?"D^0 nuclear modification factor (R_AA)..." (Similar for next bullet)"(v2) (fig. 5b) consistent with models""collisions"Figure 5 -- The x-axes of these two plots are not on an identical scale, right? So you can cut off the x-axis title of the upper panel, but the numerical labels should stay visible.D0 reconstruction at STAR:"Figure 8 (a) and (b):"If they're labeled (a) and (b) in the caption, you should add an (a) and (b) to the figures, as in Figs. 2 and 5.
On Jun 10, 2023, at 1:13 PM, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Hi Nihar,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Sorry for the delay. Please check the updated version with the implementation of all your feedback.
Regards,Priyanka
From: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 3:01 PM
To: webmaster AT star.bnl.gov<webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>; STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review_______________________________________________Hello Priyanka,
Please find my comments on your nice abstract below.
I. Motivation:
"Charm-hadron __correlation__can " -> can you make some adjustment to
avoid the extra gaps?
Please indicate if these plots are for QGP medium or vacuum.
Introduce QGP here, a short sentence. [or in the abstract mention "the
Quark Gluons Plasma (QGP)."]
II. Methodology
distribution respectively for correlated -> distribution, respectively,
for correlated
Event mixing technique to calculate k* for uncorrelated pairs -> Event
mixing technique to calculate uncorrelated pairs k* …
III. D-hadron femtoscopy
Data suggest .. -> ALICE preliminary data suggest … or ALICE data
suggest
FIg.4 -> Please include "ALICE preliminary" on this plot indicating this
is from ALICE preliminary.
strong interaction of c/c with -> Not clear what is "c/c"?
IV. D0 reconstruction at STAR
Figure - 7: D0 decay channel -> Figure - 7: D0 decay topology
V. Analysis & Outcomes
Detector effects corrections: -> TPC detector effects correction:
max. possible no. -> maximum possible number
Fig.10 left -> T_1,2 -> Track_1,2
VI. Summary
How should the correlation functions look like in heavy-ion collisions?
->
For heavy-ion collisions, QGP and hadronic phase effects on two-particle
correlations are unknown
-> In heavy-ion collisions, the contribution of QGP and hadronic phase
to D meson+hadron correlation functions is not well understood. (or well
studied)
First experimental analysis -> First measurement
Model study (ex. Lednický–Lyuboshitz) is on the plan to extract
interaction parameters, like emission source size -> Plan to extract
interaction parameter, like emission source size, using
Lednický–Lyuboshitz model.
input on interactions -> input to the interaction …
Model calculations needed that include -> Theoretical inputs are needed
that include
Cheers
Nihar
On 2023-06-06 17:59, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Priyanka Roy Chowdhury (priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl) has
> submitted
> a material for a review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/63885
>
> Deadline: 2023-06-19
> ---
> 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] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review,
webmaster, 06/06/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 06/07/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review,
Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT), 06/10/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review,
Mooney, Isaac, 06/11/2023
-
Message not available
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review, Mooney, Isaac, 06/12/2023
-
Message not available
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review,
Mooney, Isaac, 06/11/2023
- Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review, Nihar Sahoo, 06/12/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review,
Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT), 06/10/2023
-
Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for IS 2023 submitted for review,
Nihar Sahoo, 06/07/2023
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.