STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Tanmay,

The slides continue to look better each draft. I have some more comments, below. Sorry for brevity, I was trying to get you these before your rerehearsal.

Thanks,

Isaac

4. "complementary"

10. This slide still needs some work. I think we talked about removing some of the panels. You can keep 2 or 3 and say "plus 5 more, for 7D simultaneous correction!" (if you use 2 panels).

13. You show "hint of suppression at higher g bins" while still showing LeSub?

15. Still awkward wording: "Observations from peripheral events comparable..." -> "Peripheral events comparable to pp"

Your legend doesn't have pp in it?

Still don't understand the pp uncertainty on pTD

The conclusion in red on the penultimate s. 15 comes out of nowhere right now. You need a cartoon or something to recall what you said earlier about quark and gluon jet fragmentation and how it affects the observables. Also why are we concluding this in the pp comparison slide? Since it doesn't have to do with pp. I know you probably wanted to show pp first to validate the peripheral results. I would say it would work better to just show a single one of the three pp comparisons, say 'hey peripheral is pp-like, good, now we feel confident making conclusions about the central-peripheral comparison.' Then to make your q/g conclusion, go back to the girth plot with just central and peripheral, add the cartoon and make the conclusion.

16. If you're going to use this plot to make the comparison, remove the 40-80% because it makes it hard to see the 0-20% comparison. Also remove the second slide 16 because we haven't had time to think enough about the AA/pp ratio and we also don't need to belabor the ALICE agreement point.

17. Did you verify whether MultiFold had been used in heavy-ion collisions outside of RHIC before?

"towards"

Add the comparison to heavy-ion simulations (e.g. JEWEL) outlook

Hard-core needs to be mentioned here as a potential bias (could put it in bullet 5 as another explanation).

On Sep 3, 2023, at 9:11 AM, Tanmay Pani via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi all,

Here are the slides with all the comments from the conveners over the last few days implemented.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Tanmay_Pani_QM2023.pdf

The preliminary page:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/tpani/Preliminary-request-Generalized-angularities

Thanks,

Tanmay

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 2:58 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

Thanks a lot for the draft. As we discussed during lunchtime today, I will wait for your updated results and slides. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:10 AM Tanmay Pani via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi all,

I have updated the link with the first draft of the talk. Please find them here:

Tanmay_Pani_QM2023.pdf

Looking forward to comments and suggestions

Tanmay

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:34 AM Tanmay Pani <tanmay.pani.rutgers AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

This submission is a draft version, please just use this version to peruse the plots. I will be updating this shortly into a more final version

Thanks,

Tanmay

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 2:31 AM webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 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/65011

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://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