STAR HardProbes PWG

["Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT)" <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>]

Thank you so much, Isaac.

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 3:53 PM
To: Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>
Cc: Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>; STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; webmaster <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for 67th DAE SYMPOSIUM ON NUCLEA... submitted for review

 

Hi Priyanka,

I agree with Barbara’s suggestion to just keep one of the two figures. And I sign off on the updated version.

Thanks,

Isaac

On Sep 15, 2023, at 4:45 AM, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl> wrote:

Hi Barbara, Isaac,

I have implemented all comments. For clarification, as I didn't apply track merging for the preliminary plot, I corrected the line mentioned on the abstract. 

Please find the modified version here https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DAE_abstract_Priyanka_V4.pdf

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 10:06 AM
To: Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>
Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>; webmaster <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for 67th DAE SYMPOSIUM ON NUCLEA... submitted for review

 

Hi Priyanka,

probably the second, but it's a very minor thing. I would actually suggest keeping only one, from the year that you actually use to extract the correlation function.

Cheers,

Barbara

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 8:33 AM Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl> wrote:

Hi Barbara,

I am almost done. I have a confusion to address the issue about combining fig 1 and 2. Should I keep both separately and place one after the other and make the numbering as 1 (a) and (b)?

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 8:16 AM
To: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>; Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>; webmaster <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for 67th DAE SYMPOSIUM ON NUCLEA... submitted for review

 

Hi Priyanka,

have you had a chance to implement Isaac's comments?

Cheers,

Barbara 

On Thu, 14 Sept 2023, 23:47 Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) via Star-hp-l, <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Isaac,

Thank you so much. I will implement your comments soon. 

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:43 PM
To: Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>
Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; webmaster AT star.bnl.gov<webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for 67th DAE SYMPOSIUM ON NUCLEA... submitted for review

 

Hi Priyanka,

Thanks for quickly preparing the modified version according to their template. Most of my comments are small, so it shouldn’t take too much time to update. In the interest of time, I’ll push it to STAR-Talks.

Thanks,

Isaac

> Either "0-80%" or "centrality-inclusive"

> Should be either "momentum less than __" or "p < __" (throughout)

> "within a rest frame" -> "within the rest frame of their center of mass"?

> I would suggest to integrate the event mixing technique more into the previous text. Something like: "To calculate the correlation function, C(k*) = ..., we took the ratio...rest frame. In this analysis, uncorrelated pairs were obtained using a mixed event technique." Otherwise, I think a non-expert might sit there thinking for a minute about how you get uncorrelated pairs, before realizing they should check after the equation for more details on that.

> Remove comma after "Figure 1 and 2 show"

> Not sure you really need two separate figures for the two separate years. Could just do subfigures.

> "influence the number of"

> Sorry, just for my own clarity on the paragraph just under Fig. 2: although track merging was found to have a negligible effect on the correlation function, you still correct for it? Or not?

> The "For systematic..." paragraph is a bit confusingly written. You say "For systematic uncertainty studies, we applied ... purity correction...". But the purity correction itself is not a systematic, so this doesn't make sense to me. I think you are referring instead to the fact that you assess a systematic uncertainty on the purity itself in that equation via the statistical uncertainty on the S/F determination. So this should ideally be two sentences: one to introduce the correction for purity that you apply to the data, ideally before the discussion of uncertainties; then in your discussion of uncertainty have a sentence about the one relating to the purity correction. Hopefully my comment makes sense.

> Some redundancy in the "Purity = S/(S+B)..." sentence. Try: "Purity = S/F, where F = S + B" or similar.

> Can you double check the equations for sigma_F and sigma_S?

> Does the font size change midway through the last paragraph?

> I think it will be confusing that you mention 2014 and 2016 earlier, then don't specify which year the D0-K C(k*) is from and mention in the future that 2014 and 2016 will be combined. To this point, people would probably have assumed all of your analysis text/results were referring to the combined dataset. So mentioning earlier that it's 2014 would help.

> You show a comparison to a theoretical calculation, but never describe it (e.g. what is HMChPT? Does it include final state interactions with the medium? Etc.) So when you then conclude with "Also, theoretical inputs are welcome..." it might be confusing to a non-expert who may not know that the calculation you're comparing to already doesn't have such charm quark-QGP interactions.

> "2 frm" -> "2 fm" in Fig. 3.

On Sep 14, 2023, at 9:27 AM, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl> wrote:

Hi Isaac and all,

Thanks for all the comments. I have implemented all, but I had to change the abstract according to the mentioned template for the symposium which I didn't notice before. Extremely sorry for this inconvenience. I tried to keep the message and information not very different from my QM poster to make the current abstract simple but informative. Please find my newly updated version herehttps://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DAE_abstract_Priyanka_V3.pdf

I can answer any questions during today's PWG meeting. 

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:40 PM
To: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>;webmaster AT star.bnl.gov <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for 67th DAE SYMPOSIUM ON NUCLEA... submitted for review

 

Hi Priyanka,

Hope you had safe travels home. Sorry for my delay — see below for my comments. With these implemented, I sign off.

Thanks,

Isaac

15. It's not clear to a non-expert whether you mean that it's the first measurement of femtoscopic correlations between these pairs, full stop; or you mean first in this rapidity range, with this species, at this CM energy, with data from these years, at this experiment :). Anything that is just more detail on the measurement could be moved before this. E.g. "In this presentation, using data from 2014 and 2016 taken by the STAR experiment, we will show the first measurement..."

16. "D0 - proton" -> "D0 - p"

17. "in the years"

21. "in the 0-80% centrality range" or "in 0-80% centrality". Or, preferably, "centrality-inclusive femtoscopic correlation function...” instead. But up to you.

On Sep 12, 2023, at 5:18 AM, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Nihar,

Thanks for all your comments and signing off. I have implemented all and updated version is here https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DAE_abstract_V2_PRC.pdf

Regards,

Priyanka

---

 

From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:10 AM
To: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>; webmaster AT star.bnl.gov<webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for 67th DAE SYMPOSIUM ON NUCLEA... submitted for review

 

Hello Priyanka,

Please find my comments on your nice abstract.
With these implemented, I sign off.

L4: title
"…at STAR" -> "by STAR"

L5: "Priyanka Roy Chowdhury " -> "Priyanka Roy Chowdhury (for the STAR 
Collaboration)"
  Please mention your affiliation.
L7: "…and they…" -> "…and experience …"
L10: "as well as" -> and
L11:     between charmed mesons -> between the charmed meson
  L22:discuss physical implications. -> discuss their physical 
implications.


Cheers
Nihar


On 2023-09-11 16:54, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear convenors,
> 
> I would like to draw your attention to my submitted abstract for the
> mentioned symposium.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> Priyanka
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> 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: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:42 PM
> 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 Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for
> 67th DAE SYMPOSIUM ON NUCLEA... submitted for review
> 
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> 
> Priyanka Roy Chowdhury (priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl) has
> submitted
> a material for a review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/65070
> 
> Deadline: 2023-09-15
> ---
> 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