STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Andrew,

Ok, I don't have any further comments. I sign off.

Best
Nihar

On 2024-05-17 03:38, Andrew Tamis wrote:
> Hello Nihar,
>
> I believe that introducing this new observable is very important in
> the abstract, as it allows access to new physics and will be shown
> alongside the normal EEC and EEEC, so making a distinction with the
> charged-energy correlators allows a highlight of what new results are
> being shown in addition to extending the correlator to three point.
>
> Best,
> Andrew
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:59 PM Nihar Sahoo
> <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> > 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