STAR HardProbes PWG

[Anders Knospe <ank220 AT lehigh.edu>]

Hi, Isaac. I see what you mean now with the "perform invariant-mass analysis" comment. I have uploaded a new version to address your comment. Thanks! -AK

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 12:08 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Anders,

Sorry I didn’t mean to suggest making the text a non-uniform size (although I think it can work; Youqi’s poster is a good example of this in my opinion). I just didn’t realize your layout didn’t allow for resizing of the boxes for example, to accommodate an overall increase to say 30 pt. For me 28 is on the small size, but okay it’s an aesthetic choice and I’ve already signed off.

I do think on my second point maybe you thought I meant that the “perform invariant-mass analysis” should be earlier, but I meant shouldn’t the “Divide into multiplicity bins…” bullet be the first subbullet under that heading? I could be misunderstanding your response.

Thanks,

Isaac

On Aug 28, 2023, at 11:52 AM, Anders Knospe <ank220 AT lehigh.edu> wrote:

Thanks to Isaac and Yi for their comments. I have uploaded a new version of the poster. My responses to some of the new comments are below. -AK

IM: The text is a bit on the small side. Consider reducing the size of the STAR detector figure and the dimuon plot just a bit and see if that gives you any additional room to increase the font size. You could also try removing the middle of the three multiplicity selections for the dielectron plots (making sure to move the legend and Ref. to one of the other two) since it’s not much different visually from the low-multiplicity.
AK: The layout is tuned to this text size, and I think it looks bad to have a different text size in each box. So increasing it in one place can cause problems in others. The size is 28 points, which I think should be fine for a full-sized poster.

IM: Should bullet 3 in Sec. 4 under “Perform invariant-mass analysis” not be first out of the three? Or am I mistaken?
AK: This is mainly driven by layout considerations, but I think it's also a reasonable description of the procedure. We select events, select tracks, and identify electrons. Then after that's done, we do an invariant-mass analysis with the electron candidates. So I think it works as-is.

YY: Abstract: since we don't have the preliminary results yet, should we just mention "Herein we present the progress of the measurement of J/psi production... "?
AK: Changed to "Herein we present the status of the measurement..."

YY: Motivation: Observe --> Observed? (you are a native speaker, please ignore me if I said something wrong.)
AK: Either is fine, I have changed it to the past tense.

YY: Dielectron channel: I would suggest to use the same unit: 200 MeV/c --> 0.2 GeV/c  (it is completely up to you)
AK: The plots have already been shown at conferences, so I would prefer to keep them in their current state. But it's a good thing to keep in mind for further versions of these plots.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 4:21 AM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Anders,

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

 - Abstract: since we don't have the preliminary results yet, should we just mention "Herein we present the progress of the measurement of J/psi production... "? 

 - Motivation: Observe --> Observed? (you are a native speaker, please ignore me if I said something wrong.)

 - STAR Detector: there is a space between VPD and TPC

 - Dielectron channel: I would suggest to use the same unit: 200 MeV/c --> 0.2 GeV/c  (it is completely up to you) 

 - Isaac's comments "Add “Supported in part by” above the DOE logo".

 

Cheers,

Yi

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 12:21 PM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Anders,

Sorry for the delay. The poster looks to be in a good shape now. A few small things for your consideration:

The text is a bit on the small side. Consider reducing the size of the STAR detector figure and the dimuon plot just a bit and see if that gives you any additional room to increase the font size. You could also try removing the middle of the three multiplicity selections for the dielectron plots (making sure to move the legend and Ref. to one of the other two) since it’s not much different visually from the low-multiplicity.

Should bullet 3 in Sec. 4 under “Perform invariant-mass analysis” not be first out of the three? Or am I mistaken?

Add “Supported in part by” above the DOE logo.

I sign off.

Thanks,

Isaac

On Aug 27, 2023, at 10:01 PM, Anders Knospe via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello. I have implemented the changes that Nihar and Saskia requested for my Quark Matter poster and uploaded a new version. Please let me know if there are further comments or if the poster is approved. Regarding Nihar's question about the dimuon invariant-mass plot: I believe it was approved, since it was shown at DNP last fall. If that is not the case, please let me know what you want me to do. Thanks. -AK

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/Quark-Matter-2023/Multiplicity-dependence-Jpsi-production-pp-collisions-510-GeV

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 3:30 PM Mioduszewski, Saskia via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Anders,

I was asked by STAR management to help review your poster.

It is a very nice and clear poster, and I have only a few comments.

Add the QM2023 logo somewhere on the poster.

Headers 4. And 5.:  I would include “Decay” in the titles of these sections:

"Dimuon Decay Channel" and "Dielectric Decay Channel".

Under Dimuon Channel:

I’m not sure I understand the y-axis label correctly.  Is this not the distribution of the counts per 0.02 GeV/c^2?  

Shouldn’t the unit have the 0.02 in the denominator with the GeV/c^2?

In your list of track selection cuts and PID cuts, every cut is listed quantitatively (with the cut values), except the track-matching distance to the MTD hit.

For consistency, it would be good to add that value.

Best regards,

Saskia

---

From: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 10:56
To: Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov <Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: webmaster AT star.bnl.gov <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Anders Knospe for Quark Matter 2023 submitted for review

 

Dear Star-hp-l@ lists. bnl. gov members, Anders Knospe (ank220@ lehigh. edu) has submitted a material for a review, please have a look: https: //urldefense. com/v3/__https: //drupal. star. bnl. gov/STAR/node/64717__;!!KwNVnqRv!CS0GfSWIHekWOG-286YpWUCZ7IvJXei5PAIgZGgY0q_hmL7N-1GeV5uAD5BtI1OBZIYbLdf6hCyBV7YwF2Bm3O3w$

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

This Message Is From an External Sender

This message came from outside your organization.

 

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

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

Anders Knospe (ank220 AT lehigh.edu) has submitted a material for a review,  
please have a look:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64717__;!!KwNVnqRv!CS0GfSWIHekWOG-286YpWUCZ7IvJXei5PAIgZGgY0q_hmL7N-1GeV5uAD5BtI1OBZIYbLdf6hCyBV7YwF2Bm3O3w$

Deadline: 2023-09-03
---
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l__;!!KwNVnqRv!CS0GfSWIHekWOG-286YpWUCZ7IvJXei5PAIgZGgY0q_hmL7N-1GeV5uAD5BtI1OBZIYbLdf6hCyBV7YwF76oRzoq$

_______________________________________________
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