STAR HardProbes PWG

["Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>]

Hi Gabe,

Thanks for uploading your proceedings nice and early. Sorry for the delay in 
getting comments back to you. Luckily I only have minor comments, so they 
shouldn’t take too long to implement.

Thanks,
Isaac

2 (and throughout). "\mathrm{NN}"

7. Sorry if I'm being dense, but how is this "despite" apparent 
medium-induced changes to jet fragmentation patterns?

9. "a new" -> "an exotic"

10. "p+p collisions, in which the QGP is not expected to be formed."

14.
        I would split these references out so [2] goes after "particle 
spectra", etc. Otherwise it seems like you're only referencing jet quenching 
results.
        The sentence "Modification..." is unnecessary.

19.
        "collimated"
        "collections of particles resulting from the fragmentation of 
hard-scattered partons..."

22. I'm not sure the sentence "Jet quenching..." is necessary. It's a bit 
repetitive of what was said before, and doesn't really add anything vital for 
your argument.

34 (and throughout). Can you please upright all descriptive text in math 
environments (e.g. "const", "raw", "jet", etc.)? It's easier to read that way.

39. The "mixed event method" should have a reference for those not familiar 
with it. Or you should go into detail about how we do it.

Figure 2. "2.4 GeV/c"; "m^{2} [GeV^2/c^{4}]" [Similar comment for Fig. 3].

49.
        "as well as an overlay in mass..."
        What does "equivalent subtraction" mean here?

Figure 3.
        Why do the pT ranges in large bold text seem to conflict with the 
ones in the titles of the panels?
        ">" -> "<" for the right two panels.
        For the proceedings I don't think we need the big bright boundaries 
on the high and low pT ranges. As long as it's described in the caption, it 
should be okay.

60. You already introduced p_T^const, so: "with p_T^const > 2.0 GeV/c" is 
fine.

64 (and throughout). "in-jet"

Figure 4 caption: "against"

67. This is actually from QCD and you can give a reference here. E.g. 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06197.pdf__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!F2R323MueRjH5jJ55yfcvf2jjCtEi2pyojrqsnLtdHE265qrPhOWcc7dvnGEEPzsnreoA1VEpYlLaspsu90ExW1YEZ-UUs4$
  (Fig. 1.38).

68. I would focus here instead on the effect the p_T^const has on the 
background contribution, similar to how you phrased it in s. 13 of your HP 
talk.

77. "hardest fragmenting"?

86. I would mention again the observation that the pp p/pi ratio in jets is 
less than the inclusive case, even if it was expected.

90. "sitting well below" is imprecise/informal. -> "with the proton-to-pion 
ratio in jets significantly smaller than the inclusive case."

> On Jun 30, 2023, at 2:14 PM, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l 
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Gabriel Dale-Gau (gdaleg2 AT uic.edu) has submitted a material for a review,
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64220
>
> ---
> 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