STAR HardProbes PWG

[Diptanil Roy <roydiptanil AT gmail.com>]

Hi everyone, please find the updated version of my talk. https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/RHIC_AGS_2023_Jets_Diptanil_v2.pdf

Thank you all for the detailed feedback. I have implemented all of them in the present iteration. Please let me know if you have any further comments.

Cheers,

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 2:14 PM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Neil, 

Your slides do a good job of representing STAR’s rich jet program. Below are my small comments.

Thanks,

Isaac

STAR logo should go on all slides

5.

The line here with an arrow to the > 0.1 condition is unnecessary. The mental substitution in the line above shouldn't be too hard for people, and it frees up a little space on the slide so it's not too busy.

Monika has a version of this cartoon which has the zg moved a bit to the left so it doesn't look like the Rg and zg are measured at different prongs (see s. 12 of https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/LundPlane_CERN_2023_Robotkova_v3.pdf). It would be good to either get that, or just use Keynote/PPT magic to move it yourself. And the image should be credited.

It would be nice to change the color of the conclusions here to match the color of the markers. So e.g. the "Wide-Angle Splitting..." would be in black.

It's fine to have this connection to "perturbative" and "non-perturbative" physics on the slides, but be prepared for someone to point out that flatter or steeper zg is not necessarily equivalent to non-perturbative or perturbative, respectively, due to phase space constraints. On s. 7 this is especially true because the population of splits which are the third 

6. Here to me it makes more sense to use the cartoon which doesn't cross out the radiation at wide angle but highlights it. E.g. the one from s. 4 from Youqi's DIS talk (https://indico.cern.ch/event/1199314/contributions/5188277/attachments/2618125/4529355/dis_032823_anim.pdf). You should also add the image credit.

7.

"...3rd hard splits..."

My comment about the perturbative vs. non-perturbative claim is especially relevant here, because it's a quite unique phase space for splits which have had two hard splits previously. So I would even suggest rephrasing to: "Consistent with perturbative to non-perturbative transition"

9.

"Mean shifts higher..." -- would be good to illustrate this with an arrow or vertical lines or something, since it's somewhat hard to see from the image.

"More quark initiated..." -- as written, this looks like a conclusion we're drawing from the plot. But this is from theory -- so I would either have the LO quark/gluon jet fraction plot on the slide (I can dig it up if you can't find it) and then remove it with an animation when you also bring in the girth and differential jet shape plots; or I would connect the two bullets so one statement offers support to the other: "Mean shifts higher with higher jet p_T, where quark jets dominate the sample" or similar. Then you can just point to the LO plot in some way either in a backup slide or as a citation.

"Further tuning of the PYTHIA-8 fragmentation parameters..."

10. 

"Inconsistent with path-length-dependent energy loss expectation in a QGP"

This is a ton of information to digest on a single plot. I would recommend breaking it up either with animations or by splitting it into two or three separate slides.

pA is kind of niche so even jet people may not be familiar with EA as a concept as opposed to centrality which they're used to. Might need to explain, or just say it's similar to centrality. 

The axis labels are currently hard to read, but this would improve if you split it into multiple slides.

11. It is a very strong statement to say that v2 > 0 = path-length dependent quenching. It needs some qualifier like "indication of". See Tristan's HP prospectus Conclusions for details: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Protzman-HP23-Proceedings_V3.pdf

12. "Wide angle jets" is a bit ambiguous. How about: "Excess of jets away from back-to-back in AuAu (acoplanarity)"?

13. Remove "in jets" in the first line, since this is universal.

14. 

This slide is a bit scattered. First, you have these blue bold bullets on the right, which are kind of in the middle of seemingly independent lines of thought. I would recommend moving them to either the beginning or end of the block. Second, they don't really seem to give enough detail -- e.g. you haven't mentioned the forward upgrade but say we have "access to forward rapidity" and it's not clear the physics reason for going to forward rapidity; you haven't mentioned the EPD before (in e.g. s. 4), but say we'll use it for triggering. And the blue conclusion on the left is a bit narrow when it could have a more physics-related takeaway: we can test the energy density dependence of the v2 by looking at a larger collision system.

It might help the feeling that things are scattered if you group into detector upgrades and improvements due to higher statistics. I know you have a grouping with jet yield measurements and one with jet substructure measurements, but the EPD bullets break that. So instead it could be e.g. recently iTPC, forward upgrade, EPD, etc. These go with your bold blue bullets on the left and on the bottom right. Then the higher statistics from Run 23 - 25 goes with your upper set of bullets, and the lower one minus the "Access to forward rapidity". 

On Jul 25, 2023, at 4:45 PM, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Neil,

Thanks a lot for the nice slides. I have some minor comments for your consideration. 

 - p4: you can remove MTD

 - p10: middle plot, is this a STAR preliminary or STAR plot? If so, please add the label. If not, please remove it. 

 - p14: before this page, it would be good to have a brief summary. I understand that each page is a summary of a dedicated analysis, but can we summarize what we have learnt in two or three bullets? For example, we will need more statistics to understand jet properties in QGP, and we will need a better Pythia tune? 

Cheers,

Yi

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 6:21 AM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,

Diptanil Roy (roydiptanil AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a review, 
please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64383

Deadline: 2023-08-01
---
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

--

~ Neil