STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Andrew,

I only have some minor comments on your proceedings. Sorry for the delay.

Thanks,

Isaac

2. "200 GeV at STAR"

3. Andrew Tamis, for the STAR Collaboration

7. "First corrected measurement" makes it seem like there was a previous measurement that was uncorrected => remove "corrected".

20. "but there has been recent interest in applying them..."

21. Be consistent with the style for collisions: it's $pp$ here, but p+p in the abstract and title for example; "collision"

22. Space between "systems" and "[3]"

24. Remove one "the"; "combinations of two constituents within a jet" -> "all combinations of two of them, "

27. You say two regimes, but would we not consider the transition region a regime as well? You say in the introduction that we're interested in "the region where non-perturbative effects begin to dominate as partons are confined into hadrons".

32. "measurement"; "is presented"

35. "200 GeV"

36. "during the 2012 run of RHIC" -> "in 2012"

40. "with resolution parameters..."

42. "two combinations of constituents" -> "two-constituent combinations"

47. Change "...is shown in Eq. 1..." to "...is given by:" and then the equation.

50. Remove "differential and the"

53. "was" -> "is"

Fig. 1. "particle-level -> "detector-level"; "parton-level" -> "particle-level"; left panel: not a color-blind person's best friend. On the topic of aesthetics, you can also trim some of the white space at the bottom of this plot (~1 order of magnitude) to make the data less compressed. The labels (e.g. the sqrt{s}, jet R, etc.) could also be decompressed a bit.

62. "an additional" -> "a"

65. "withing their jet radius" -> "separated by less than the jet radius"

68. "...truth transverse momentum p_T^part for each pair"

69. "slice" -> "selection"; "a fractional weight corresponding to each p_T^det bin."

73. This is a bit more detail on the misses than is necessary. I would recommend just giving the tracking efficiency example, like: "...for several reasons. For example, constituents of selected particle-level jets may be lost due to tracking efficiency." 

77. You should cite Kevin Adkins' thesis here for the STAR tune.

103. Do you want to point out that this is roughly the value we see in the CMS Open Data paper, so you can make the point that it's also consistent across a broad CM energy range?

110. "vacuum"

Fig. 2.

"differentially" (and throughout)

[General] When all of the panels are shown in the same figure like this, you don't need the entirety of the set of labels on the left side of each. You can either break them up across the subfigures, or you can leave all the shared ones on one panel and remove them from the others. E.g. "p+p, sqrt{s} = 200 GeV" and the next line only need to go on one panel.

Fig. 3.

"Comparisons" should start a new sentence (and add "also" before presented); remove "for scale"

Since this is not a talk you can now remove the bright, colorful label for the jet pT range. This will also give you more room to make the other labels (e.g. jet radius, etc.) bigger.

113. Either "two-point energy correlator" or "EEC"; remove the commas around "at RHIC".

118. I had to read this ~3 times because I thought you were saying the correlator was somehow in the middle of the two regimes. Maybe "between the two distinct regimes of the correlator."

Can you hyperlink the references?

On Jul 8, 2023, at 4:28 PM, Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Nihar,

Thank you for the nice comments, I have uploaded a new version implementing them.  For Figure 1 I was using updated pdfs where the only change was the caption "Kyle Lee, MIT" -> "Lee et al." but I forgot to include the labels for the regions in these versions, which I have now added.  I've kept the updated label for the theory curve, let me know if this is ok.  For Figure 2, as you recommended I added an interpretation that the overall correction needed is small but the difference is most prominent in the very low and very high delta R regions, so i've updated the plot to be log scale on y axis to show this better as well.

L16-17: "where the partons begin to behave non-perturbatively" -> "where non-perturbative effects begin to dominate as partons are confined into hadrons"

L54: "As this observable is expected to exhibit interesting behaviors due 
to" -> "As this observable is sensitive to selections on "

L111: I changed this line to "perturbative behavior"

Best,

Andrew

On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:35 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for your nice proceedings.
Please find my comments below.

Firstly, I am not sure if we should call it "fully corrected 
measurement". Because L76-77 mentioned that we have not corrected "the 
ΔR and energy weight ".  What do you think?

Title: … 200GeV -> 200 GeV
L1:Andrew Tamis ->Andrew Tamis (for the STAR Collaboration)

Abstract:
The EEC can cleanly reveal… -> The EEC can reveal…
$ p_{T,jet}$ -> $p_{\rm T,jet}$ [all places like L49,53, in Eq1}

The EEC will be shown for several full… -> The EEC is shown for several 
full…
This work will be useful… -> This study is useful …
…in heavy-ion systems,… ->…, in heavy-ion collisions, …
L15: …perturbative effects -> … perturbative quantum chromodynamics 
(QCD) effects.
L16-17: "…where the partons begin to behave non-perturbatively …" -> Not 
sure where do you get this statement. Can you give some references? This 
transition from color to colorless object in QCD is completely unknown. 
It is probably incorrect to say "parton begins to behave 
non-perturbatively".  Please rephrase this.
L19 heavy ion -> heavy-ion [all places]
L24:    This will cleanly separate … -> This observable separates … [ Still 
ambiguity is there in separating these two regimes]
L27:     …quark/gluon shower … -> …parton shower
L31: $p_{T}$ -> $p_{\rm T}$
L33: using data -> using the data
L33: √s=200GeV -> √s = 200 GeV
L34: Experiment -> experiment
L35: Neutral energy deposits were determined -> Neutral energy deposits 
are determined [make tense consistent]
L37:    Jets in this dataset were found … ->    Jets are reconstructed…
L38: R = 0.4 and R = 0.6 -> R = 0.4 and 0.6
L43: in conjunction -> together ; deposits -> deposited ; were -> are
L46: in equation 1 -> in Eq. 1
L47:    between two particle pairs -> between the two particle pairs
L48:  …particle pairs, differential in their distance from each other ΔR 
->      …particle pairs and the differential in their angular distance.

L49: energy weight, (…) in … -> energy weight, (…), in...

Fig.1->  x-axis, y-axis title, labels are so small. Please increase the 
size.
Caption:  p_T^det -> $p_{\rm T}^{\rm det}$,  p_T^part -> $p_{\rm T}^{\rm 
part}$; correlations matched between the two simulation samples  -> 
correlations between the matched jets of these two simulation samples ; 
PYTHIA6 -> PYTHIA-6 or PYTHIA 6 (same for all other places)
_ No comment on  Fig.1 left plot. If Pythia6+geant reproduces the 
Pythia6 or not in the texts .

Fig.2: Use the same plots those were used in HP2023. For example, in 
your HP2023 presentation, there were texts like "Free hadron", 
"transition", "Quank/gluon" but these are not in proceedings

L54:    As this observable is expected to exhibit interesting behaviors due 
to  -> rephrase this sentence especially "interesting"

L57:    at particle(truth) level and at detector level. -> at the particle 
(truth) level and detector level.
L60 -> if they are within … -> if their jet axies are within their jet 
radius.
L88->           the jet cone the distribution ->                the jet cone, the 
distribution
L92: Lambda_QCD -> $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$
L95: Figure 2 -> Fig. 2 [similarly in L101 for Figure 3]
L96: R_turnover -> R_{\rm turn over} ; similarly jet-low -> _{\rm 
jet-low}
GeV/c [non-italic and use slash ]
L106:heavy-ion environments. -> heavy-ion collisions.
L108: Energy Correlator ->      EEC
L109: … in jets done at RHIC has been presented.  -> … in jets, at RHIC, 
are presented. ; remove "cleanly"
L111: perturbative fragmentation of quarks and gluons -> "perturbative 
fragmentation" has no meaning;


Cheers
Nihar

On 2023-07-05 18:52, Andrew Tamis wrote:
> Hello Nihar,
> 
> Yes, I have updated with line numbers.
> 
> best,
> Andrew
> 
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 9:10 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Andrew,
>> 
>> Can you please put linenumber in your proceedings?
>> it will help us to comment on it.
>> 
>> Thank you
>> Nihar
>> 
>> On 2023-07-02 07:26, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>> 
>>> Andrew Tamis (andrew.tamis AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for
>> a
>>> review,
>>> please have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64225
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 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