STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Andrew,

This will be a fun talk. I have some comments below — nothing major, as it’s 
already looking good.

Thanks,
Isaac

2. Why specify "jet pT" here? Why not just generically must correct for 
detector effects? Although here I would probably remove the bullet altogether 
and just mention more about the detector, e.g. that the BEMC is also used for 
our trigger for these measurements. You can still mention as you transition 
between this and the next slide what corrections you need to do to get the 
results we see. In fact, you might even consider a slide on the details of 
the analysis, because it's pretty abrupt to have: title slide -> STAR 
detector -> corrected result in three slides. And it's all the hard work that 
you did, which you should get to mention!
        In the first bullet it would be good to specify what resolution you 
mean (momentum, angular,...).
        In the second bullet, I would focus in the text on what the BEMC 
itself measures, rather than go one step further to mention jets. Of course 
you can still verbally say that having the BEMC over the full azimuthal 
coverage allows us to reconstruct charged+neutral jets.

5. "roughly consistent" -> "comparable"

7. I would reframe this a bit as less about the models and more about the 
physical mechanisms in nature. So instead of "Different hadronization 
models", how about "Hadronization may introduce..." Then we can move on to 
test whether one of these models is closer to how QCD really works.

11. Now that I'm comparing the preliminary plot to the plot from Kyle and Ian 
on s. 8, I'm noticing that the behavior of Pythia and Herwig is flipped 
(instead of the like (opposite) distribution shifting to lower (higher) 
angle, it's the reverse). Do you understand why? Is it something to do with 
the kinematic selection difference, or the initiator flavor difference?

12. I think this last bullet should be tuned up a little bit. We know that 
Pythia and Herwig do a pretty good job describing hadronic data for other 
observables at RHIC energies, so I think you'd need to be a bit more specific 
about what may be failing here.

14.
        "compliment" -> "complement"
        In the conclusions it would also be good to mention something about 
the physics that we observed with the measurements, maybe in the third bullet 
(your choice).

> On Jun 26, 2024, at 15:47, 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/68214
>
> Deadline: 2024-07-08
> ---
> 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