STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Andrew,

Sorry for the delay. I also have some comments below — mostly nitpicks since the slides are already in good shape.

Thanks,

Isaac

2. "Interesting to follow time evolution of jet" is a bit of a filler — it doesn't describe *why* we're interested in doing it. Something like: testing virtuality or energy evolution of parton shower / self-similarity of QCD radiation / dialing up non-perturbative or hadronization contribution / etc.

3. "no additional clustering or subjet removal [or for this audience you could call it grooming] after jet-finding". Here, maybe you don't have enough space to add in text, but you can verbally mention that this reduces assumptions about the radiation pattern (e.g. angular ordering, as with C/A) which could be especially useful for AA in the future.

4. Is there not an older (i.e. '80s) reference for the ENC? 

6. I think you more frequently use p_T,jet than p_T^jet. Just be consistent whichever one you pick.

7. Not sure how I feel about using the word "measured" for your det-level embedding. Maybe either switch to particle- and detector-level, or truth and reco.

11. The legend for the pT ranges is pretty small

12. 

"complementary"

The text here is pretty conversational. The first bullet can be removed entirely or replaced with something like "Also measured by CMS, ALICE", while you can verbally say what the first bullet currently says. The second bullet can be more like "pT <downarrow> => DeltaR_{transition} <uparrow>" or something like that [again, the bullet you currently have is more like what you would verbally say. The last one can also be shortened to "Test universality of <insert the Turnover \propto \Lambda_QCD/p_T,jet equation here> by scaling with p_T,jet".

13. 

"consistent on order of magnitude" is a bit weird. Maybe "roughly consistent" or "is within an order of magnitude of..." 

Not sure I understand the choice of bolding and caps here on "scaled".

Last bullet is also conversational. How about "q, g fragmentation differences => transition region shift?"

14. 

The green and red in your figures here is very difficult to distinguish as a color blind person.

Can the second half of the label (20 < pT < 40, PYTHIA8, MPI off) be moved so it's above the center of the second panel, while keeping the other half centered above the first panel, for aesthetics? You can also remove the legend from the second panel since it's repeated with no difference. The labels for the sqrt(s) and q/g dominated look excellent though.

15. 

Is it precision that we improve with 3D unfolding? Or accuracy?

As is, the like and opposite sign EEC comes a little bit out of nowhere at the end, but if you take it slowly here and really motivate it at this point you may not need to change anything about the structure of the slides.

This is a good example of the kind of bulleted text I was referring to on s. 12 and 13. Looks great.

16. Since the paper page on drupal isn't public-facing, it shouldn't be linked here. 

On Oct 31, 2023, at 12:04 PM, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Thanks a lot. The link works now! 

I have some minor comments/suggestions on your nice slides for your consideration. 

 - p4, p5: I would actually put the "theoretical definition" and "experimental construction" on the same slide. It would be very nice to compare them side-by-side. But just a suggestion, it is completely up to you. 

 - p7: I would replace "Details in Hard Probes Proceedings" by your arXiv number. 

 - L12: ALICE and CMS preliminaries --> ALICE and CMS results 

 - p14: Are these plot simulations? If so, please indicate it. 

 - p16: I would remove the hyperlink for "Paper in progress" 

Cheers,

Yi

 

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:32 PM Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yi,

That's strange, i couldn't access it either, something must have happened with uploading the file.  Thanks for pointing that out, let me know if it works now.

Best,

Andrew

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:35 AM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

I am having problems opening your slides, could you please check the link (I can open Youqi's slides through )? 

Thanks.

Cheers,

Yi

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 5:18 AM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

I discarded this duplicate (65698). We’ll give comments on 65699.

Thanks,
Isaac

> On Oct 24, 2023, at 5:04 PM, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Andrew Tamis (andrew.tamis AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a review,
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/65698
>
> Deadline: 2023-11-06
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster@http://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