STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Veronika,

Thanks a lot for the nice proceedings and sorry for the late reply. I was half way through version 1, but let me do it on version 2. I only have some minor comments for your consideration. 

 - Abstract: 

    - high-energy heavy-ion --> high-energy HIC   (or remove "(HIC)" in the first sentence) 

    - I would suggest using "heavy quarks" or "heavy-flavor quarks" consistently. 

 - Introduction: 

    - Actually I won't use HQ for heavy quarks (or heavy-flavor quarks), it just reads a bit strange to me, but totally up to you. 

    - I would suggest using "heavy quarks" or "heavy-flavor quarks" consistently. 

    - the ideal probes of Quark-Gluon Plasma --> the ideal probes of QGP

    - Add reference 1 to the text (after Fig.1 depicts... 200 GeV), you only have it in the Fig.1's caption. 

 - Analysis: 

    - (i) photonic --> (i) Photonic 

    - (ii) hadron-decayed --> (ii) Hadron-decayed

    - It would be good to add references for TPC, TOF, and BEMC

    - The Time Projection Chamber is --> The TPC is

    - The Time Of Fight detector information --> The TOF detector information 

    - You need to introduce what DCA is. 

 - Results: 

    - In this section --> In the previous section? 

   

Cheers,

Yi

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Veronika Prozorova via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Isaac,

Thank you very much for the comments and sorry for the late reply. You can find the updated version here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ProceedingsIJMPA_ver2.pdf

Pease, let me know if you have any further comments.

A few answers to your comments:

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?

Yes, it should be like this. For TOF we are using hybrid mode from 1.5 GeV/c^2, while for BEMC we apply the cut starting from 1.25 GeV/c.

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

That was my bad. I use "number" just for me to know where to look in the code. I removed it now.

Best regards,

Veronika

вт, 28 мая 2024 г. в 22:36, Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>:

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

_______________________________________________
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