Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-hp-l - Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Andrew Tamis for HP2024 submitted for review

star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • To: Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>
  • Cc: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Andrew Tamis for HP2024 submitted for review
  • Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 09:29:54 +0530

Hello Andrew,

I understand introducing a new definition may create confusion.
I would suggest you to use EEC or two-point energy Correlators; EEEC or three-point energy Correlators.
Details how do you weight that can be mentioned in the expression or in the text.

For terminology in paper draft, I am going through the paper. I will discuss and comment there.

Thank you
Nihar



On 2024-05-15 01:19, Andrew Tamis wrote:
Hello Nihar,

Thank you for the helpful comments. For point 2) I am referring to
the measurement of charge-energy correlators, which will be new for
this talk. I have previously referred to these as "charge-selected"
or "charge-separated" correlators, such as in the paper, which is
appropriate for two-point correlators, but "charge-weighted" is
intended to be more general: as this observable is defined by an
additional charge weighting in the energy weight definition (i.e.
EQEQ/pT^2 for two-point and EQEQEQ/pT^3 for three-point). Let me know
if this terminology is appropriate. I think updating this in the
paper for consistency might be appropriate as well.

Best,
Andrew

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 7:50 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for your nice abstract.
Please find my comment below.

1) please include "For the STAR collaboration"
2)"Charge-Energy" and "charge-weighted ENCs" -> I think you refer to

charged particles' energy correlations.
If yes, I think something can be improved in the wordings.
Otherwise, it sounds like "charge-energy correlation"

Besides, It seems like we are going to introduce a different name
"Charge-Energy" Correlators comparing with the EEC paper draft.
Can we make it consistent? And this "charge" is a technical details
(selecting charged particles for correlator) that can be included in
the
text.

Best
Nihar

On 2024-05-14 03:09, Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l wrote:
Will upload to drupal, but sending here for now as it seems to be
facing some slow-down

Best,
Andrew

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:37 PM Andrew Tamis
<andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>
wrote:

Hi Isaac,

Thank you very much for the comments, I have implemented them,
please let me know if the point of "close to the massive case"
has
been made clear. I have split it into two sentences now
beginning
at the end of line 14, as I believe it is a truly important point
about the unique capabilities of STAR for this measurement. I
have
saved space by merging the two sentences of paragraph one into
one,
so let me know if this reads well as well.

Additionally, I have reworked the title, so feedback would be
appreciated on that as well.

Best,
Andrew

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 2:56 PM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Here are a few more small comments along with a replication of
the
comments I just gave you offline in your office so there is a
record.

Thanks,
Isaac

Sentence 1: You did a great job making the abstract general to
the
N-point correlator for any N, but we discussed here removing
“projected” and moving it to the first sentence of paragraph
2
because this sentence is valid for projected or non-projected
correlators whereas you measure specifically the projected one.
Sentence 2: “approximately separates”
Sentence 3: “at which hadron groups with different charge
compositions” or similar
Paragraph 2, sentence 1: “We will present”
Sentence 3: “at RHIC energies compared to LHC energies”
: Please revise to make “close to the massive case” and
“observation of the non-perturbative effects of …” more
clear
especially for a reader not familiar with EECs.
Last sentence: “are presented”.

On May 13, 2024, at 02:14, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Thanks a lot. I don't have any further comments.

Cheers,
Yi

On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 11:32 PM Andrew Tamis via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thank you very much for the suggestion, i have implimented it.

Best,
Andrew

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 10:03 PM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Thanks a lot for the well-written abstract.
I only have one minor suggestion for your consideration.
- at STAR sqrt(s) --> at STAR collision energies

Cheers,
Yi

On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 1:27 AM 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/67701

Deadline: 2024-05-25
---
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

_______________________________________________
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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page