STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Dear Nihar and HP conveners,

    Please also find a diff version of paper draft compared to the old 
version in this link, thanks: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/paper_draft_54p5_Jpsi_v15_diff_with_v14.pdf

Best regards,
Kaifeng


On 2023-10-13 12:15, kshen via Star-hp-l wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l