STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Thanks, looks good to me.

I sign off.

Cheers,

Barbara 

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, 17:35 Tanmay Pani, <tanmay.pani.rutgers AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for the comments, here is the updated version:

proceeding_23.pdf (bnl.gov)

Tanmay

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 6:03 AM Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

please find below a few comments from my side.

- L36: shown quenched -> shown that quenched

- L47: Events lower -> Events with lower

- L68:  Energyflow ->  Energy flow

- Fig. 1 and captions: add "from Au+Au collisions at \qrt{s_NN} = 200 GeV"

- Fig. 2 caption: uncertainties as -> uncertainties are shown as

- L90:  I would move "pTD distribution shows ... " sentence after "in Fig.2."

- L100: observations -> distributions

- L101: RHIC -> STAR

- JHEP references are not correct (not all info is there)

- ref [6] remove " the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Project: RHIC and its Detectors"

- ref[10] is not full

-  ref[14] - remove tile

Cheers,

Barbara

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:27 AM Tanmay Pani via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Issac,

Thanks for the helpful comments. 

Here are those implemented:

proceeding_21.pdf (bnl.gov)

Tanmay

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:43 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

The proceedings look very nice. I have mostly small grammar comments.

Thanks,

Isaac

2. \sqrt{s_{NN}} in the title (upright "NN" here and in the abstract, as you correctly have it later on).

13. "jet periphery"

25. Remove "of high-energy hadron collisions" since it's a bit redundant with "In heavy-ion collisions", and also jets exist in e+e- for example. [Also change it to "the early stages".]

26 (and throughout). Either "QGP" or "QCD medium". 

Eq. 1 (and beyond). I prefer "cons" over "const" since const is typically used as an abbreviation for constant. Obviously it's clear from the context that this isn't what you mean, but why not make things a bit simpler. Your choice. [By the way, you use "N_con" later which is inconsistent.]

33. "hard" is jargon and needs explanation if you want to use it.

34. 

You can remove the apostrophe (and even the 's'). It's clear from the font change that it's not part of the variable.

"angularities"

You're discussing general 'beta', which could for example be 0. Then we don't have any information about the angular spread.

41. 

Either "these proceedings" or "this work".

The 'p' in pT,D should be math font

Eq. 2. "LeSub" should be upright (also in caption of Fig. 3), and why not use the abbreviation "const" here for consistency? (Or "cons" as I suggest above).

45. This could use a new section header, e.g. "Experimental Procedure", or similar

51. Move "as was done in previous STAR analyses [8]" after "is applied," (adding another comma after "[8]".

56. You say "0.3" here but in the plots in Fig. 3 you say "A_jet > 0.4", which is inconsistent.

Fig. 1. "pT,jet ranges"

60. Extra space between "pT,jet" and the comma.

61. MultiFold also uses camelcase in their publication. Best to stick with that.

65. 

If you're going to show a closure test, it needs to be explained more what we're looking at: What is a closure test? What does it mean for it to be 1? Or not to be 1? Etc.

"Proper closure is demonstrated" (fixes redundancy with later part of sentence).

Fig. 2. 

Could use some beautification: the labels on the x-axis are being cut off by overlaps of the three pads; consistent label sizes for the x and y axes; larger axis titles; the current legend could just be the y-axis title (but it's fine if you want to leave it); the labels near the top of each panel are redundant with the x-axis titles and can be removed; and the y-axis can be zoomed in to e.g. 0.8 to 1.2 to avoid so much white space.

You can also explain the uncertainties on the plot (i.e. just statistical).

67. "deconvolute...events" is a bit weird. How about "deconvolute detector effects from heavy-ion collision events"?

Fig. 3. 

"magenta stars, normalized to unity" doesn't make sense to me. And you need to describe the data first, then the ratio. So remove "magenta stars,", add "(red stars)" after "0-20%", similarly for blue stars and 40-80%, and have a statement about the statistical and systematic uncertainty. Then describe the bottom panels of the plots, and the magenta stars, along with a comment about the assumption of uncorrelated uncertainties.

Similar plot beautification comments to Fig. 2 (label size, axis title size, numbers cut off, etc.)

70. This sentence is missing some definite/indefinite articles.

72. "within conservative systematic"

73. "with uncertainties from various sources being added in quadrature. Parameters..." 

78. There should be a reference here.

83. "MultiFold"

84. "peripheral"

86. "calculations" -> "determination"

General: some physics is missing here -- 

You don't mention what centrality is. Why are we comparing central and peripheral? What would it tell us if the comparison between two centralities were not 1? Etc.

On l. 82, you should go one step further to say what the hard fragmentation bias implies. E.g. it makes jets look more unmodified since modified jets are wider. This is important to specify to make the physics point and to then connect to what STAR observes.

You never mention in the Conclusions what we actually observe: i.e. no difference between central and peripheral collisions. You could put a statement about this before "It must be noted that..." on l. 85.

On Dec 12, 2023, at 7:47 PM, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

Thanks a lot for the updated one (v20). I don't have any further comments on it.

Cheers,

Yi

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 8:46 AM Tanmay Pani <tanmay.pani.rutgers AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thanks for the comment, here is the updated version:

proceeding_20.pdf (bnl.gov)

Tanmay

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 5:34 PM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. It looks good to me, except one minor point, inL64-66, you mentioned Fig. 2 first, so please move "Multifold  has been previously shown to compare well with the more commonly used RooUnfold [14],  as shown in Fig. 1 [9]." to L63.

Cheers,

Yi

 

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 3:12 AM Tanmay Pani <tanmay.pani.rutgers AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thanks for the comments, here is the updated version:

proceeding_18.pdf (bnl.gov)

Tanmay

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:14 AM Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. I have some follow-up comments: 

 - L68: It would be good if you can include the plots from your talk (p11) to demonstrate the multifold really works. I understand this is not your results, but since you emphasise that this is the first time using it in the heavy-ion collisions, I would think it is worth mentioning it. 

 - L78: you have several sources for systematic uncertainty considered, I checked your preliminary plot slides and found: 

     1. pT,jet resolution: Shifting the pT,jet result window by 3 GeV/c

     2. Multifolding non-closure: Any non closure between test and train sets from multifolding validation tests
     3. Multifolding regularization parameter: batch size
     4. Multifolding regularization parameter: number of Iterations
     5. Prior variation estimate from p+p results
     6. The uncertainties on the Central/Peripheral ratios were calculated by adding the uncertainties of central and peripheral plots in quadrature

     Can you remind me again if you add all of them in the preliminary results? Or just number of iteration? If you had all of them, please mention them in the proceedings. 

 

Cheers,

Yi

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 6:57 AM Tanmay Pani <tanmay.pani.rutgers AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thank you for the comments. 

Here is the new version with them implemented: 

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/proceeding_19.pdf

Tanmay

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:58 PM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

Thanks a lot for the proceedings. 

Could you please provide the draft with the line number so it will be easier to comment?

In the meantime, please find my comments below: 

 - Abstract: 

   - In this talk --> In this contribution  

   - I would remove "(jets constructed using ... background)", I think it is too much information for abstract

- Introduction: 

   - Any references for the generalized jet angularities definition? If so, please add them. 

   - pT, jet: it should be the jet's transverse momentum or the total jet's transverse momentum 

- Analysis details: 

  - Like you mentioned in the summary, it is the first time using multifold in heavy-ion collisions, could you please add more about it here? 

- Result and Discussion --> Results and Discussions 

   - Please add more details about the systematics, you only mentioned "various sources".

Cheers,

Yi

     

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 1:24 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/66241

---
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