STAR HardProbes PWG

[Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>]

Hello Nihar,

Thank you very much for the comments.  I have implemented them ver batim where possible, and more in depth comments follow:

1. Abstract is too long.  "no more than 600 characters".

Apologies, This is correct.  I will work on shortening the abstract in following drafts, but have not made changes as of now, I will think through this and update in the future, as i wanted to push the other updates along.  We can also discuss in GPC what information is most relevant to keep.

Section 3:
Yes it is STAR Tune, I have included this now

Unsure of how to mention jet momentum resolution, should we include the plot from analysis note in appendix?  For now I have mentioned that it is non-trivial and biases detector-level jets to lower momentum.

Summary:

Have moved discussion about comparison to other experiments to results section

Analysis Note: These figures are expected to be updated as soon as the new embedding sample is available.  As the extend of this effect is only visible in a few bins in the unfolding sample not converging with iteration, this effect is not expected to be large, and will not change physics messaging, so i believe that it is reasonable to move to GPC before the sample is fully produced, to fully hone the messaging.

Best,

Andrew

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 1:34 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Andrew,

I found time today to go through your nice paper draft on EEC
measurement in pp.
As I am a pwg representative of your paper, I have to go through again
during GPC.
So, Here I just have some quick comments, details I may give during GPC
discussion.
With these address, I sign off.

________________
1. Abstract is too long.  "no more than 600 characters".

L25: quantum chromodynamics (pQCD) -> quantum chromodynamics (QCD)

L30: "called a jet. Substructure…" You can make another para with "Jet
substructure …"
Or, from "Recent…"
L35 : "…including its transition from a perturbative to non-perturbative
scale." -> you need to mention what is this transition in QCD? And what
is the scale? Not clear for general readers.

L40: "re-lying on advancements such as …" -> sounds incomplete
"advancements of '…' such as" ?

L40: if we could mention what are "perturbative portion" and
"non-perturbative information"? Then that would be good for general
reader.
L50: N-Point -> N-point

L55: need to define "angular (distance) scales, R_L"?
L95: Λ_QCD needs to be introduced before. Right place is L35.
        Also P_T,jet
"to lower angles" -> Not clear what angle?
L120:  before this line, Better to mention intigrated lumi of this
dataset.
L135: "with this energy never allowed to go below zero." -> you mean to
say that if it is below zero then you don't consider that tower in your
full jet reconstruction. But the energy of tower after subtraction may
go to zero practically. Is not it?

L160: "RL is the angular distance between the two tracks in the pair."
Here you are defining again. See L55 comment. Make it consistent.

Section.III
_ Is this PYTHIA6 a STAR tune?
_We need to mention P_T,jet resolution for these three P_T,jet ranges.
_You did not discuss about the closure test for this correction
procedure.

Summary Section.V
I would suggest to concise this summary section for PRL so that reader
can get the crisp/key points of this measurement.
Some discussion and conclusions can be included in Result Section IV.

Fig.2,3-> Please increase the label, Title, legend font size

In these figures, are these quoted  pt,jet ranges from PYTHIA or the
data?; if these are corrected data, then it is ok. Otherwise we need to
discuss in GPC.


________ANALYSIS NOTE_

-page 5/38:  what is the time line to update pertaining figure in this
analysis? As we are going to GPC, it is important to know. how much that
will affect the final plots?
[same for the other places]


Best
Nihar


On 2024-03-12 02:33, Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Ahead of my presentation at the STAR collaboration meeting next week
> to request GPC formation for my paper measuring EECs in Run 12 pp data
> at sqrt(s) = 200GeV, I am sending my updated paper proposal page,
> which now includes an analysis note and paper draft.  Please let me
> know if you have any comments.
>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/atamis/Paper-Proposal-Measurment-Two-Point-Energy-Correlators-pp-Collisions-Sqrts-200-GeV
>
> Best,
> Andrew
>
> --
>
> Andrew Tamis
> Yale University
> Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
> Department of Physicsandrew.tamis AT yale.edu
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l