STAR HardProbes PWG

["Bielcik, Jaroslav" <jaroslav.bielcik AT fjfi.cvut.cz>]

Dear Isaac,

thank you very much for your comments.

I tried my best to take them into account and I have updated my talk

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/JaroBielcik_ICNFP23_v2.pdf

With best regards Jaro 

---

Od: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Odesláno: pátek 7. července 2023 23:31
Komu: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Kopie: Bielcik, Jaroslav <jaroslav.bielcik AT fjfi.cvut.cz>
Předmět: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Jaroslav Bielcik for ICNFP 2023 submitted for review

 

Hi Jaro,

The slides look very nice already. Please see my comments below.

Thanks,
Isaac

General:
        There should be a STAR logo in the corner of all slides.
        Looking at the other talk titles in your session, it seems that you'll have a somewhat general audience. The slides as currently written might be a bit too technical for that audience. You don't have a lot of time to radically change the structure, but it would be good to go through it one more time with an eye for what a non-RHIC/LHC person would understand or might find confusing. As one example, describing elliptic flow and its physical implications conceptually in addition to just the equation would be good.

7. I agree with your statement that the enhancement can be qualitatively described by model calculations including coalescence effects. But it would also be good to add a comment (especially since you have space) pointing out that none of the models are consistent with the data over the full pT range since this may be an area of potential follow-up from modelers.

8. Should mention for clarity that all these models (Ko, Catania, Tsinghua, Rapp) incorporate coalescence. Also should be "most models incorporating..." Since e.g. the Catania coal. doesn't agree with the data. And is there a reason the version of this plot on the left that includes the Cao et al. model isn't used?

9.
        Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is there supposed to be a note for the D+- entry in the table as well? It looks like the comment below the table is referring to the **, but not sure what the * is for.
        I believe these first two citations are flipped. And why is it labeled "D0 2014" rather than just "D0"? Could you also add [#] before each citation to match where they're cited in the Hadron column?
        Your first bullet "pT integrated total D0 cross-section per binary collision is smaller in Au+Au than p+p" is not possible to discern from the table, since the pp D0 X-sec is not shown, right? Could a row be added for pp D0 using the value from Fig. 24 of the PRC?

14.
        You say "Low pT < 2 GeV/c: Cold nuclear matter effect" but there is additional suppression in AuAu in this kinematic. So I would say "Cold nuclear matter effects are non-negligible" or "contribute" so it doesn't imply they are the only contribution here.
        "Suppression driven by system energy density"

16. R_CP should be defined.

19 (and 20). Could you indicate more visibly the difference between these two plots? I've seen them many times and even for me it took a few seconds to figure out that the difference was in the jet radii shown. This comment applies more generally as well -- usually things are labeled but the labels are a bit small and take a moment to pick out.

21. "lead" and "sub" should be upright in the A_J definition.

22. "Indicates" is a bit strong, since the Hardcore jets should be surface biased, so it's not necessarily a claim we can make about all recoiling jets. I would say "Consistent with recoil jet losing..." instead.

24.
        "acoplanarity"
        The summary is a bit light on jet takeaways. I know you don't have time to talk about everything in the talk, but there is a significant ongoing program of pp substructure, pAu jet CNM effects / potential biases, AuAu substructure, constituent PID, fragmentation, etc. Since this talk focuses on AuAu (although small systems/system size dependence is mentioned), you could at least just mention in the first bullet of the summary that jet measurements have also made extensive use of these nice 2014 and 2016 datasets. Or you can at least point to future jet measurements using the 2023-5 data.

> On Jul 7, 2023, at 5:36 AM, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Jaroslav Bielcik (jaroslav.bielcik AT fjfi.cvut.cz) has submitted a material for
> a review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64271
>
> Deadline: 2023-07-10
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster@http://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