STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Tanmay,

Looks great, I sign off.

Thanks for addressing my comments,

Isaac

On Jul 14, 2023, at 11:56 AM, Tanmay Pani <tanmay.pani.rutgers AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Issac,

Thanks a lot for your very helpful comments. I have implemented them here:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Proceeding-2023_3.pdf

Tanmay

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 9:28 AM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

Sorry for my delay in giving you my mostly minor comments. Please see below.

Thanks,

Isaac

General language comment: many unnecessary hyphens (when not modifying some other noun; i.e. ""hard-core" constituent selection" is okay, but "around its "hard-core"" is not). Please check throughout. E.g. "jet-axis", "jet-girth", "angular-distribution", "hard-fragmentation", "infra-red", "jet-shape", "hard-core", etc.

7. 

Should be either "QGP" or "QCD medium"; "vacuum"; "complementary"; "first fully corrected measurements"; "girth (g)"; "(p_T^D)"; "(LeSub)" [upright]

"this proceeding" -> "these proceedings" (and throughout) [see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proceeding def. 5].

11. "are modified"

14. Remove the scare quotes; "the intra-jet angular distribution"

Eq. 1. Remove the "\times"

17.

"jet axis"; remove first "Parameters"

This construction is a bit odd -- parameters are not themselves sensitive to anything. They're set by the analyzer. So rephrase maybe as: "\kappa and \beta are parameters which, when increased, increase experimental sensitivity to hard and wide-angle radiation, respectively."

21. "it is trivial to see that" -> "it follows that"

23. Upright "NN"

25. Missing space

26. "complementary"

32. Missing space

46. This sentence is a bit confusingly worded. First, "unfolding is trained" -> "The unfolding requires a response matrix between particle-level and detector-level. This is constructed from a simulation..." Also, the wording makes it seem like the "p+p collision environment" is simulated rather than real data. I would continue the sentence I started above ^ "...using PYTHIA-6 STAR tune [ref] passed through a detector simulation in GEANT-3, with resulting detector hits added to real zero-bias events from the same run period as the data." or similar.

Also, the embedding uses the STAR tune, not Perugia (2012) (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Run12_EmbedRequest_0.pdf). And "Perugia" is not enough to uniquely identify the tune. E.g. Perugia 0 and Perugia 2012, from the same paper, are different.

50. "its"; remove scare quotes

Fig. 1. "Data calculation" -> "data"

58. Again, I'm assuming you're using the STAR tune for comparison (and you can cite Kevin Adkins' thesis).

61. Unnecessary to say "and overestimates it away from..." due to the normalization, right?

66. This is a nice framing of the conclusion.

75. You should be more specific here about what further tuning is needed. Since the Detroit tune only modified the MPI parameters in Pythia, you can say that this further tuning can look specifically now at the parton shower/hadronization parameters.

84. Can you fix the capitalization in the references? E.g. "pbpb" -> "PbPb".

86. Missing Ref. 4.

98. Journal is missing.

On Jul 13, 2023, at 5:58 AM, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Tanmay,

Thanks a lot for the nice proceedings, I only have some minor comments on the "_1" version for your consideration.

 - L7: second paragraph: rho(r), g, pT^D, and LeSub -->  jet-girth (g), momentum dispersion (pT^D), and momentum difference of leading and subleading constituent particles (LeSub)...

 - L32 - L36: It reads a bit strange, it should mention STAR first, then TPC and BEMC... 

 - L60: Figs 3 and 4 --> Figures 3 and 4 

 - Figure 2: LeSub (bottom) 

 - Figure 3: To be consistent as Fig.2, pT^D = sqrt(lambda0^2) (top-left), LeSub (top-right) ... 

Cheers,

Yi

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 5:37 AM Tanmay Pani via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Nihar,

Thanks for the helpful comments. Here is the updated version with them implemented:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Proceeding-2023_1.pdf

Cheers,

Tanmay

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 3:20 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Tanmay,

Please find my comments on your nice proceedings.


Abstract:
observables from RHIC, using… -> observables, using… GeV collected by
the STAR experiment.
Finally, data -> Finally, the data…
"This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant
number: 1913624." -> Drop this in the abstract. You should add in the
Acknowledgment.


L9:early stages of high-enregy -> early stage of high energy hadron
collisions [ because jet is more generic for pp collisions]
L10: dense bunchings of hadrons called jets -> as collimated sprays of
hadrons called jets.
L12:    have  modified fragmentations… -> get modified relative to its p+p
baseline. This is known as jet quenching [1].

L13: jets are probes of QGP -> jets are used as probes of the QGP.
L14: One way to access this information ->No clear, what information?
L17:    Parameters 𝜅 and 𝛽 tune sensitivity  -> The 𝜅 and 𝛽 are parameters
sensitive to…collimation, respectively.
L18: are infra-red -> is infra-red …angularity[],…which probes …around
the jet axis.
L20: given by: -> given by,
Eq.1: Introduce pT,jet in the text
Eq.2: put "," at then end of the equation-2
Eq-3: put "period" at then of the equation-3

L22: Prior angularity based jet-substructure measurements… -> The jet
angularity based observables like jet-substructure measurements in Pb+Pb
collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 2.76 GeV, at the LHC, have shown …

L25: 𝑝T,jetfrom  -> 𝑝T,jet at RHIC,
With higher interaction time in the QGP -> Drop it, nor required. [Note:
at LHC energy, QGP time is large than at RHIC]

L26: will help understand … -> …will help to understand the jet-medium …
with LHC.

L29: measured from -> measured in p + p collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 200
GeV to set a baseline for heavy-ion collisions at RHIC.
     [Drop other sentence. Make it short and clear]

L31: a non angularity-based -> a non-angularity based …
L32: splitting in the jet -> splitting of jet

L33: Data Selection and … -> Dataset and …
L35-36: … GeV, collected…[]respectively. -> … GeV collected…[],
respectively.

L36: TPC and BEMC ….->  The Solenoidal Tracker At RHIC (STAR) detector
provides full…
L39: resolution parameter (𝑅) of 0.4,  ->              resolution parameter 𝑅 =
0.4,
L41: the larger heavy-ion analysis -> the larger heavy-ion background
  L43: atleast -> at least
L45: reduce fake jet -> reduce the fake jet
L49:    …was trained using using a simulation of detector effects and … ->
…was trained using a simulation of detector effects, and …
L53: were associated. -> were used.
L53: The 𝜌(r) results were corrected … -> The 𝜌(r)  was corrected … [ I
prefer in present tense through out the draft, please change it if
possible]
L54: obtained using the aforementioned embedding simulation1. ->
obtained from the aforementioned embedding simulation1.

L55: Results and Discussions  ->                Result and Discussion


L56: Differential jet-shape (𝜌(r)) -> Differential jet-shape as a
function … axis is shown…

Fig.1 caption:  show ratio -> show the ratio …

Footer of 2nd page: "with thw unfolding" -> with the unfolding

L60: PYTHIA-8 Detroit/RHIC -> PYTHIA-8 Detroit
L61: show good agreement ->             show a good agreement


L64:    it away. -> it.
Figs. 3 and 4 -> Fig. 3 and 4 show the STAR data comparison with
PYTHIA-8…
L65: …(quark jets) and (c) -> …(quark jets), and (c) …

L67: "on avenger" -> this is used multiple time. Please remove this. It
reads awkward.
L70: PYTHIA 8 -> PYTHIA-8
L74: core jets p+p collisions -> core jets in p+p collisions
setting the baseline for calculating… -> setting the baseline for
heavy-ion collisions to measure the medium-modification at RHIC. [200
GeV is not needed to mention]
L75-76: With the …be noted. -> This sentence needs to be rephrased.


Cheers
Nihar


On 2023-07-08 02:56, Tanmay Pani wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> It seems like this entry was not opening the pdf for some reason, I
> have reuploaded the pdf here:
>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Proceeding-2023_0.pdf
>
> Please let me know if you can open it or not.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tanmay
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 6:01 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hello Tanmay,
>>
>> Can you please check this entry?
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64227
>>
>> It shows "Access denied".
>>
>> Best
>> Nihar
>>
>> On 2023-07-05 18:43, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Hello Tanmay,
>>>
>>> I can see there are two entries on the same proceedings of HP2023.
>>> So I am going to rejecting this entries.
>>> and we will only keep the entry with 64227 and I will send comment
>> on
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Nihar
>>>
>>> On 2023-07-02 10:30, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>
>>>> Tanmay Pani (tp543 AT physics.rutgers.edu) has submitted a material
>> for a
>>>> review, please have a look:
>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64226
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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

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