STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Tanmay,

Since you should upload the presentation to the conference webpage basically now, I propose that you upload the current version (I sign off) with minor changes:

- I would just remove the statement at the bottom from slide 11.

- slide 13 (second) now you don't have the "kink" statement at all. My point was to remove this statement about pTD for later slides (14 and later) where you already show other observables. So please put back the "kink" sentence on slide 13 (second).

If someone has suggestions for the change of this statement, or any other small comments, you can still replace your slides on indico later in the evening.

Cheers,

Barbara

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 10:50 PM Tanmay Pani via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi all,

After addressing comments and checks proposed by conveners, please find the preliminary request page here:

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

And I did a few more changes to my slides too:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Tanmay_Pani_QM2023_v5.pdf

Tanmay

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 1:22 PM Tanmay Pani <tanmay.pani.rutgers AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks for the nice comments, here is the new version with them implemented. 

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Tanmay_Pani_QM2023_v4.pdf

Thanks

Tanmay

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:48 PM Youqi Song via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

Regarding slide 11, I think it’d be good to make some clarification that this comparison between RooUnfold and MultiFold is done with a different analysis. Especially since M isn’t an observable you listed on slide 9.

For your convenience, here are the references for RooUnfold: 

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.052007

and for the MultiFold comparison:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07718

Best,

Youqi

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 12:28 PM Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

thanks for the new version of the slides. 

A few comments from my side.

- Title: break it in a way that "200" and "GeV" are in the same line

- slide 5: I would remove "event plane reconstruction" from TPC, it's not relevant here

- slide 11: Add below the plot full reference to the published results shown on the plot

- slide 11: I also don't know if we should state "Comparisions between the two methods ..." . This may rise some questions. Any suggestions from others ?

- slides 13-16: use distinct title for each slide, not just "Results"

- slides 13-16:  once you move to next observable, highlight it in the first bullet

- slide 14- 16: remove second bullet about the kink in pTD

- slide 17: Room to improve by studying systematic uncertainties in more detail

- It looks that not all the comments from the rehearsal are implemented, would be great if you could go via the notes once more.

Cheers,

Barbara

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 5:13 PM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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