STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Yuan,

First of all, sorry for this delay.

I have gone through your paper draft. It is in good shape.
A minor comments can be found below. And I sign off.

We will be working on to request for GPC formation asap and you will be 
informed.

___________________
Comments are on this version: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/European_Physical_Journal_C__EPJ_C__20240122.pdf


1.  "….less gluon formation time and suppressed gluon radiation with a 
small angle (dead-cone effect) result in less radiation energy loss.." 
-> This sentence needs some work, For instance "less", "small angle" not 
mentioned with respect to what. ; "radiation energy loss" -> radiative 
energy loss
2. …nuclear size R_A dependence are quadratic … -> I would suggest to 
use different notation for nuclear size "R_A" as we use "R_AA", better 
to avoid
3. …statistical isobar data based on the RHIC experiment provides… -> 
…statistical isobar data provides [ based on…, sounds awkward]
4. due to its large mass, mc,b >> ΛQCD,… -> is not that also mass 
relative to "temp of the medium"?
5. To improve the significance of the D0 signal, a blind analysis based 
on a large data sample is performed.  -> Is that true? Not sure blind 
analysis was conducted for this analysis.
6. MB data samples but also can … -> ..MB data samples but also it can…
7.  Fig.1: Need to mention centrality or total MB event inside Fig
8. c is the … -> The $\it{c}$ is the…
9. All variables' notation that has a "value" should be "italic". Non 
value notation should be "roman"; please keep this consistent
10. "…derived from various charm-hadron decay channels containing…" -> 
Please provide 1-2 channels example
11. Eq.9, Make \it{N}_bin
12. "…generated from the hard scattering of initial partonic" -> 
"generated from the hard scattering" [generally all hard scatterings are 
by initial partons]


Thank you
Nihar

On 2024-01-24 21:13, suyuann--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear conveners，
>
> The materials of D0 R_AA analysis in isobar collision are ready. If
> it's ok, we would like to push them to PWG review.
> please find the updated version in the following link:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/suyuann/RepliestoPWGCpreviewD0RAAisobar
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Yuan
>
> > -----原始邮件-----
> > 发件人:suyuann AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
> > 发送时间:2023-06-14 22:01:21 (星期三)
> > 收件人: "STAR HardProbes PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> > 抄送: ephy <ephy AT ustc.edu.cn>
> > 主题: Replies to PWGC preview D0_RAA_isobar
> >
> > Dear conveners and all,
> >
> > As we had tried to fit the pi/kaon/p spectra in isobar by Blast-Wave
> > function, we have implemented PWGC preview comments.
> >
> > please find it at:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/suyuann/RepliestoPWGCpreviewD0RAAisobar
> > If it's ok, we would like to put forward to PWG review.
> >
> > Thanks and best regards,
> > Yuan
> >
> > On 2023-05-16 04:23, Barbara Trzeciak via Starpapers-l wrote:
> > > Date: 05/15/2023
> > >
> > > Participants: Hanna Zbroszczyk, Toshihiro Nonaka, Jae Nam, Nihar
> > > Sahoo, Issac Mooney, Yi Yang, Yue-Hang Leung, Subhash Shingha,
> > > Shinichi Esumi, Yuan Su, Yifei Zhang, Sooraj Radhakrishnan,
> > Barbara
> > > Trzeciak
> > >
> > > Title: Measurements of inclusive D0-meson production in Isobar
> > > collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV
> > > PAs: Yuan Su, Yifei Zhang, Xiaolong Chen
> > > Target journal: EPJC
> > > Proposal page:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/suyuann/Measurements-inclusive-D0-meson-production-Isobar-collisions-200-GeV
> > > Presentation:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PWGC_D0_RAA_isobar_20230512_YuanSu_0.pdf
> > > The PWGC panel previewed a paper proposal from HP PWG. The panel
> > found
> > > that the analysis is mature and results are important and
> > interesting,
> > > and the paper should move forward. The journal choice was also
> > found
> > > to be appropriate. The following points were discussed.
> > >
> > > Q: R_AA comparison vs centrality or N_part, do we plan to show
> > both,
> > > what is the conclusion ?
> > > A: We don’t have enough precision to say we are in agreement
> > with
> > > Au+Au at the same N_part or centrality interval.
> > >
> > > Q: Slide 17: There is large centrality dependence of the extracted
> > T
> > > and beta parameters for D0 and they are very similar for Au+Au and
> > > isobars at the same centrality while one would expect the same
> > > temperature for the same N_part.
> > > A: The uncertainties are too large to draw conclusions.
> > >
> > > Q: D0 R_AA comparison to theory - which model is it ?
> > > A: This is a new calculation for isobars using the framework from
> > > TAMU, but it’s not published.
> > >
> > > Q: Why are there so high systematic uncertainties at low pT in Raa
> > and
> > > why is it asymmetric ?
> > > A: Because there are no data points there for p+p, it comes from
> > > extrapolation from the Levi function and uncertainties on this are
> > > from fits of other functions.
> > >
> > > Q: Slide 16: light particles are from Au+Au ? Can we add isobar
> > > results here ?
> > > A: This is a good suggestion, but the pi/K/p results are not
> > published
> > > yet.
> > >
> > > Q: Slide 12: What are the three types of errors for Au+Au ?
> > > A: The shaded bands are from N_bin uncertainties
> > >
> > > Q: Slide 12: Why does p+p have such large statistical errors ?
> > > A: There is extrapolation involved.
> > >
> > > Q: Slide 17: Have you tried the same Blast-Wave fitting for p+p ?
> > > Would be interesting to compare to HI results.
> > > A: We can try to perform the fit.
> > >
> > > Q: Can we have a comparison of R_AA to the theory for Au+Au ?
> > > A: Yes, it is published, we can add to the plot.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > 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