STAR HardProbes PWG

["Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>]

Hi Veronika,

Sorry for being so late to give you comments as this email came right around 
the Hard Probes abstract submissions and I lost track of it. The proceedings 
read very well already, but I have some small points below.

Thanks,
Isaac

Please add "for the STAR Collaboration" after your name.

It would be good to move the citation in Fig. 1's caption up to after "200 
GeV" so it's clear the reference corresponds to that data. Also now that it's 
published, it would be good to modify slightly to "compared with previous 
STAR (stars) and PHENIX (empty squares) results..." so it doesn't seem like 
you're implying that the other data is published while these data are not.

Upright/roman text for "incl", "pho", "HDE", "purity", "measured", "LS", 
"merged", etc. Switch "<" and ">" in eq. 2 to "\langle" and "\rangle".

Should it actually be ">= 1.5 GeV/c^2"? Or 1.25 GeV/c^2 as it is in the next 
line, and everywhere else?

"are pared with" -> "are paired with"

"In the event that the pair comprises either an electron..." -> "In the event 
that the pair comprises either two electrons or two positrons..."

Fig. 2: since everything is the same except the centrality selection, you can 
omit every legend/label from the right-hand plot except "40 - 60%" so people 
don't spend too much time trying to figure out what the difference is.

It's a bit confusing in Sec. 2.2 to say that an unlike-sign pair "is 
indicative of the signal" since you're going to then subtract the photonic 
electron yield from the inclusive as a contamination basically. I understand 
you mean "signal" of real PE, but people might be confused and think you mean 
signal of real HFE since this is the goal of the study. Maybe change 
"indicative of the signal" to "indicative of real PE".

Fig. 3: the label is overlapping with the curves. It's also not explained in 
the caption what "number" is referring to.

At the top of the last page, the description of the plots flips "right" and 
"left" (also in the caption). There's also an extra "(left)" in the text. 
Lastly, should be "are shown...are approximately".

Could save space by saying "These proceedings present an ongoing analysis..." 
and remove "This analysis is ongoing".

"NPE electron" is redundant -> just "NPE" or "non-photonic electron".

You do cite the 54 GeV HFE v2 analysis, but it's a bit odd not to mention it 
explicitly in the text (unless I missed it). It could fit well in the 
paragraph on pg. 2 starting "Fig. 1 depicts recent STAR results...". Maybe at 
the end of the paragraph: "...such as 54.4 GeV, following up on a recent STAR 
publication of elliptic flow of HFE at this energy." or something like that.

> On May 16, 2024, at 08:21, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l 
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Veronika Prozorova (v.d.prozorova AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a
> review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/67804
>
> ---
> 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