STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Yi,

Thanks for these feedback. Please find the new version by addressing your comments.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/WPCF_23_proceeding_Priyanka_V4_corrected.pdf

I would like to request you to push it to Star-talks if there are no major comments.

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 5:20 PM
To: Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>
Cc: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>; 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 WPCF 2023 got commented by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury

 

Hi Priyanka,

Thanks a lot for the updated version. I have some minor remaining suggestions for your consideration. 

 - General: sometimes you use year 2014 or Run 2014, it would be good to use the same way. 

 - L49: Change the order of TOF and TPC, since TPC is mainly for tracking. 

 - L59: 80 % --> 80%

 - L70:  TPC hitpoints ---> TPC hit points 

 - L102: 8 % --> 8%

 - L119: reference for cusp effect? 

Cheers,

Yi

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 9:56 AM Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl> wrote:

Dear all,

Please find the updated version (V4) of the proceeding here (with corrections of Roman and Italics).

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/WPCF_23_proceeding_Priyanka_V4.pdf

To answer Nihar's question, regarding whether the first section is abstract or summary ---> ans is this is the abstract (shortened one in comparison to the one submitted, to avoid crossing page limit) but due to the given template, the name of the section is automatically appearing as 'summary'. As I have summarised my physics message within the last section, I didn't add a separate section for this purpose.

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 1:25 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>; Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>; webmaster <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for WPCF 2023 got commented by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury

 

You had it right! Italic is appropriate (see e.g. PDG here: https://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/tables/rpp2015-tab-mesons-charm.pdf or this Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04998-2).

Thanks for checking,

Isaac

On Mar 27, 2024, at 20:13, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl> wrote:

Thanks a lot, Isaac for these details clarification. This is very helpful. Just to be clear, "c" used for charm, should be kept in italic or should I change it to Roman?

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 12:51 AM
To: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>; 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 WPCF 2023 got commented by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury

 

Hi Priyanka,

Thanks for addressing our comments. The new draft is much improved in my opinion. As for the typographic question, my understanding is the same as the guidelines you posted*, but I see some things that are not in keeping with that standard. I’ll point them out below — hopefully it helps give a feeling for it, for the future as well.

Thanks,

Isaac

*I also like https://chemistry.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/443/which-symbols-are-written-in-roman-upright-font-and-which-are-italicized for a bit more comprehensive guideline on this specific question.

> The “D” in D meson should be italic. Same for the “K” later on.

> The “c” denoting speed of light should be italic (except any instances where it’s being used as a unit, which is not the case on l. 11 for example).

> “NN” in sqrt{s_{NN}} should be roman (since it’s a label abbreviating nucleon-nucleon sub/superscripting a variable).

> S, C, N, A, and B should be italic. They’re variables.

> The differential “d” should be roman as it’s a mathematical operator.

> Both the “V” and the “z” in “V_{z}” should be italic (also the “z” in "vertex-z”). Same with X and Y later. They also don’t need to be capitalized.

> “x” on l. 111 should be italic.

> “M” for invariant mass in Fig. 1 should be italic. It’s a physical quantity.

> “E” and “x” in “dE/dx” should be italic.

> The “n” in n\sigma should be italic.

> You have it right on l. 77 but not l. 74 for example that the “c” in the unit GeV/c should be roman.

> “S” and “B” corresponding to signal and background should be italic.

> On l. 86, you have two different settings for rapidity. It should be italic in both cases. 

On Mar 27, 2024, at 07:02, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Nihar, Isaac, Yi,

Thanks a lot for all your comments and suggestions and apologise for my delay in responding. I tried to address and implemented almost all of those.

I still have confusion about using Roman and italics and I tried to follow the specific style guidance for the journal (uploaded in Drupal for your reference).

Please find the updated version below.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/WPCF_23_proceeding_Priyanka_V3.pdf

Regards,

Priyanka

---

 

From: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 11:04 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 <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for WPCF 2023 got commented by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury

 

Hi Priyanka,

Thanks a lot for the nice proceedings. I have some minor comments for your consideration. 

 - General: There are some strange "--", for example, after "Summary", before "Introduction". Could you remove them?  

 - L4: remove "ins" in front of Warsaw 

 - L8: I would put (c) after charm and (cbar) after conjugate, but it is up to you. 

 - L9: quark-gluon plasma --> Quark-Gluon Plasma  (be consistent with previous one in the Summary)

 - L15: "Detection of QGP" sounds a bit strange, how about "Study QGP"?

 - L35: eq.1 --> Eq. 1

 - L36: remove the space in front of "where k*..."

 - L40: eq.2 --> Eq. 2

 - L41: remove the space in front of "where N..."

 - L49: Time of flight --> Time of Flight, time projection chamber --> Time Projection Chamber

 - L50: heavy flavor tracker --> Heavy Flavor Tracker

 - L51: comminsioning --> commissioning

 - L55: K^{+/-} --> K^{\pm}  (and other places) 

 - L62: vertex position detector --> Vertex Position Detector 

 - L77: were --> where 

 - Figure 1: I would move Fig. 1 after L79.

 - L94: remove the space before "where Pair purity", Pair purity --> Pair Purity 

 - L97: It would be good to quote the size of systematic uncertainty here.

 

Cheers,

Yi

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:08 AM Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Nihar and Isaac,

Thanks a lot for all your thoughtful comments. I am almost done with implementing all your suggestions and will upload the modified version soon.

Regards,

Priyanka

---

 

From: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 2:33 PM
To: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: 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 WPCF 2023 got commented by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury

 

Hi Priyanka,

Sorry for my delay — I was out of the office for a while. I have a few more comments (see below) in addition to Nihar’s.

Thanks!
-Isaac

28. I know you give the reference to Mike's paper here, but I think it is important enough to the text that you should explain "area of homogeneity" (he does it in less than a sentence and I think something similar to this explanation would be adequate, so it shouldn't take too much space if there's a concern about a page limit. This would then make a better connection to the next sentence, where currently it's not as clear to the reader what the connection is between this area of homogeneity and the source.

41. It's a bit strange that kaons are mentioned here for the first time outside of the title and abstract. Somehow this should be included in the motivation in the Introduction.

46. I agree with Nihar's comment, but would recommend going one step further and removing the entire sentence ("These detectors...fundamental particles.").

Sec. 6 -- this section is dominated by the theory comparison. You have one sentence that says that the result is in Fig. 2, and you say the data are consistent with no correlations. Otherwise, the rest of the paragraph is all about the models. The experimental result should a) be described first before the model comparison is mentioned (so I would move up the "consistent with no correlations" to just after the first sentence), and b) get more detailed explanation, since this is what you worked on and what we need to report, as experimentalists.

105. You mention that it is consistent with a source size of 5 fm or larger -- it would be nice to give the reader some feeling for what a physically reasonable source size would be, roughly. E.g. what is N such that if my results were only consistent with S > N fm, I would think this is a non-physical statement / the interpretation has broken down. Then they could put your statement of > 5 fm into context.

General comment: there are some typographic mistakes. I would recommend doing a spelling/grammar check (e.g. "interpritation" on l. 116; "comminsioning" on l. 51; "were" -> "where" on l. 77, etc.).

> On Mar 14, 2024, at 00:28, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Hello Priyanka,
>
> Please find my comments on your nice proceedings.
>
> L3: Priyanka Roy Chowdhury  -> Priyanka Roy Chowdhury (for the STAR Collaboration)
> L4: insWarsaw -> "ins" is this a typo? If Yes, please correct it.
> Summary. — Heavy… -> Abstract. Heavy… [no "—" in between; BTW, not sure if it is a Summary or Abstract for this type of proceedings, as I can't see summary/conclusion/outlook at the end.]
>
> A study of  -> Study of
> Here we show the first measurement -> We report the first measurement…
> D0 − Kaon -> D0 − Kaon [make it roman, all places]
> …STAR experiment along with a comparison of experimental result with available theoretical predictions in order to discuss physics implications.
> ->…STAR experiment. The physics implications are discussed by comparing theory calculation.
>
> L7:   Relativistic collisions between heavy ions ->   Relativistic heavy ion collisions ;
>               quarks with higher mass, -> need to mention relative to what?
> L10: hadronization, chemical freeze-out -> need to be careful using two together in the context of HF
> L14: studying the formation and characteristics of the QGP -> studying the properties of QGP
> L14-15:  …a deconfined state  of hadronic matter produced at sufficiently high energy densities. -> a deconfined state of quarks and gluons produced at sufficiently high energy density and temperature. [Here "deconfiment" refers to quark and gluons"]
> L15:  Detection of QGP -> Study of QGP helps …
> …the universe in the moments after the Big Bang -> the microsecond old universe just after the Big Bang
>
> L17:  …STAR successfully observed …hadrons including D0 (D ̄0). -> The STAR experiment observed nuclear modification factor and collectivity of open heavy flavor hadron corroborating the important QGP signature in Au+Au collisions at \sNN=200 GeV at RHIC. Or Similar.
> L20-21: Please remove this sentence, not needed as you already mentioned in previous sentence.
> L22:          For further understanding of interaction behavior of heavy quarks (c,b) within medium, -> Please rephrase this
> L23:          momentum correlation function  -> of what?
> L24: constrain  different theoretical models. -> or constrain different model parameters. [We can constrain parameters, not theory mode] ;
> It is possible to study the phase-space evolution of emission source… -> sounds awkward. Please rephrase it.
> L26:          quantum statistics …absent -> Is that true? And also rephrase this sentence.
> L29-32: Please break this long sentence.
> L35:  expressed as eq. 1: -> expressed as,
> L40:          represented as eq. 2.  ->               represented as,
> Eq. 2 "and " -> Make it roman
> L42: from same event -> from the same event
> L44:          similar Z-position vertex (VZ)  -> similar primary vertex-z position
> L48: that allows final statements to be made about the fundamental particles. -> remove this. Not needed
> Time of flight  -> The time-of-flight
> L49:          for charge particle  identifications. -> for charged particle tracking and identification.
> L51:  track particles containing containing charm and beauty quarks  -> track open heavy-flavor hadrons
> L54: K and π tracks and -> K and π, tracks and
> L55: This paper shows … -> In these proceedings, we report the first…
>       D0/D ̄0-K+/−   -> Better to use                 (D0+D ̄0)-(K^+ + K^-)
>
> L56:          at center of mass energy, √sNN  ->              at  √sNN
> L57:          of available statistics -> remove this
>
> Page-3: "FEMTOSCOPIC CORRELATION STUDIES BETWEEN D0 MESONS AND CHARGED KAONS IN AU+AU COLLISIONS A…" -> why it is cut off, adjust the length by shortening the text here.
>
> L60  applied. Primary -> …applied: Primary …
> |V_Transverse| -> |V_XY|
> measured by two sides -> measured between two sides
> L65:  the TPC; The K and pi
> L66:  with criteria of deviation in resolution-normalised … -> Please rephrase
> L73:  track pointing resolution -> track resolution
> successful reconstruction of D  -> reconstructed D^0 and bar_D^0 invariant mass using STAR data of Au+Au …
> L76:          increasing pT -> increasing transverse momentum, pT,
>
> L77: …GeV/c were we observed good S/B ratio -> …GeV/c with good S/B ratio.
> L78: "PurityD0 " -> "Purity" is sufficient. It is understood for D^0 [same for 79]
> L80: momentum integrated nσK fit using … -> Rephrase it
> L81:  We consider kaons with momenta …                and other hadrons . -> Please rephrase this sentence.
> L82: "within considered momentum range. " -> Mention the momentum range here.
> L83: transverse momentum, pT -> pT  [you arelary mentioned "transverse momentum, pT"]
> L89: We considered and removed … -> Rephrase it; what do mean "considered and removed" ?
> L92: …we encountered negligible number of merged tracks. -> we found a negligible contribution from merged tracks.
>
> Eq.3 -> all texts, make those roman; like corr, measured.
>
> L94-95: …pT integrated D0 signal purity and the average purity of kaon sample -> here "the average purity of kaon sample" is also pt integrated. If yes, please make it consistent.
>
> L99: Inconisistent use of notation, like , here DK pairs, L96: D0 − K pair. Please make it consistent all places.
> L100: and systematic uncertainty studies. -> remove this. Not needed.
> L103: you need to mention what is "CD0K+ = CD+K0 " ?
> L104: the Coulomb interaction.
> L109: "We observe a clear depletion at origin due to the presence of D∗ (2317)± bound state which increases with decreasing source radius." -> This sentence is not corrected. "We observed…" sounds like in data which is not the case. That is in the model. So rephrase it.
> Fig.2: See comment L99; 2 fm respectively. -> 2 fm, respectively.
>
> L112: D0−hadron pairs i.e. -> D0−hadron (make it roman) pairs, i.e. …
>
> L113: from Run 2014 and 2016 -> from the year 2014 and 2016.
> L114:                 increase the precision of measurement of the correlation functions -> increase the precision of the measurement…
>
> L115: More theoretical inputs are welcome that … -> Theoretical inputs are needed for better understanding of these data.
>
> L121: remove "and STAR collaboration."; you are submitting proceedings on behalf of the STAR collaboration so it is not needed.
>
>
> Best
> Nihar
>
> On 2024-03-13 20:36, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>> Priyanka Roy Chowdhury ( priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl ) has
>> commented on a material originally submitted by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury (
>> priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl ) at
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/WPCF-2023/Femtoscopic-correlation-studies-between-D0-mesons-and-charged-kaons-AuAu-col
>> Comment:
>> Dear Convenors,
>> Please provide me your opinions and suggestions by reviewing my proceeding.
>> Regards,
>> Priyanka
>> ---
>> 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