STAR HardProbes PWG

[kshen <kshen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear Nihar and HP conveners,

   Thanks for your nice comments and suggestions, please find our 
replies in this link: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Nihar_v1.pdf

and the updated paper draft can be found in this link: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_draft_54p5_Jpsi_v15.pdf

the updated analysis note can be found in this link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysis_note_for_inclusive_Jpsi_production_in_AuAu_collisions_at_54_4_GeV_v4.pdf

if you and other conveners have any more comments or suggestions, please 
kindly let us know, thanks!

Best regards,
Kaifeng



On 2023-09-25 02:49, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
> Hello Kaifeng,
>
> Please fine my comments on nicely written paper draft:
>
>
> I. Introduction:
>
> L4: "…(QGP), can be produced in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion …" ->
> instead of "can be produced" , better to be more affirmed like
> "…(QGP), is produced in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion …" [Break this
> sentence make it two for better reading]
> L10: "heavy quarks " -> better to mention what is heavy quarks in
> terms of temp. of the medium or QCD scale?
> L13: "…deconfined hot medium." -> "…deconfined hot-dense QCD medium. "
>  [Many places "hot medium" is used through out the paper., would not
> be good to use simply "QGP"? ]
> "(re)generation" -> Why not directly use regeneration? [I understand
> that both can be possible] Or mention at least once. Otherwise it
> reads awkward with a repetition.
> L13: "…include dissociation due to …" -> "…include dissociation of
> quarkonia due to …"
>
>  2. Experiment and analysis:
> L116-118: It would be good for reader to provide <Ncoll> and <Npart>
> values for centralities used in this analysis for 54.4 GeV [a short
> table probably]. Or If these numbers have been published in other
> analysis, please cite that STAR paper.
> L131-132: "…with a mean of 0 and with of 1." -> Please correct this.
> L172: "where a clear J/ψ peak is seen." -> "where a clear J/ψ peak is
> seen at  M_ee = X GeV/c2." Better to mention where is that peak.
>
> Fig.1: Cosmetic comment:
>  Bin width of Sys uncertainty can be plotted as the same with bin
> width of stat uncertainty.
>
>  L241-246: Too long sentence. Please split them for better reading.
>
> General:  No discussion on Global and <TAA> uncertainty in this 
> section.
>
> 3. Results and discussion:
> L256: You have already discussed about <Ncoll> in L116. No need to 
> repeat here.
> L259-262: Probably we need to quote the inclusive J/psi correction
> that we get from data-driven method for 54.4 GeV.
> L270: in our new measurement. -> in this measurement. Or in the
> current measurement.
>
> L292-294: "While comparison of two model calculations at 17.3 GeV, the
> transport model cal- culation from the Tsinghua group seems to
> underestimate the experimental measurements at 17.3 GeV." -> Would it
> be good to mention also about TAMU why it better predicts? Or physics
> in TAMU model?
>
> L300: "..a flatter pT dependence of inclusive J/ψ RAA is seen at √sNN
> = 200 GeV compared to lower energies, …" -> I would argue for 54.4 GeV
> the pT dependence is either similar with 200 GeV or some pT-dependence
> at low pT. In fact, 54 GeV is quite different trend compared with
> other lower energy. Something out of order. What do you think?
>
> General on Fig.5:
> We need to discuss why do we see rising trend, at 39 and 62.4 GeV, as
> a function pT, but not in the case of 54 GeV? Reader and referee may
> wonder.
>
> _____On Analysis Note:
>
> 1. Please check if the Fig. Refs are corrected used. For example:
> L150: "…regions can be found in the Figure 37", this is a discussion
> on E/p ratio, suppose to be Fig.6. Please check also possible similar
> cases at other place.
>
>
> Thank you
> Nihar
>
>
>
>
> On 2023-09-21 03:29, kshen via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > Dear HP conveners,
> >
> >     This is a friendly reminder that the paper draft and analysis note
> > were sent out approximately one month ago, if you have any comments or
> > suggestions, please feel free to let us know.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kaifeng for PAs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2023-08-10 10:54, Kaifeng Shen via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > > Dear HPs,
> > >
> > >   The paper draft and analysis note for “Measurement of inclusive
> > > Jpsi production in Au+Au collisions at 54.4 at RHIC” are ready for
> > > pwg review. The associated documents can be found as follows:
> > >
> > >    Webpage:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/kshen/jpsi-production-auau-collisions-544-gev
> > >
> > >    Paper draft:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_draft_54p5_Jpsi_v14.pdf
> > >
> > >    Analysis note:
> > >
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysis_note_for_inclusive_Jpsi_production_in_AuAu_collisions_at_54_4_GeV_v2.pdf
> > >
> > > We would appreciate it if you could review the documents and provide
> > > us with your valuable comments and suggestions!
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Kaifeng for PAs
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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