STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Tanmay,

I agree with Issac's and Yi's comments. In particular, Isaac's general comment is very relevant for an overview talk.

Would be good to have the new version of the talk asap  (i.e. before the lunch time the local conference time) with all of the suggestions implemented, so that I can still have a look at the updated slides.

In addition, the figure on slide 14 looks cut out from somewhere.

Please note that the submission deadline is 2 weeks before the conference, which was 3 weeks ago. If you do not see comments from conveneners for an extended period of time, you are encouraged to reach out to them.

Cheers,

Barbara

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 3:56 AM Yi Yang <yiyang429 AT gate.sinica.edu.tw> wrote:

Hi Tanmay,

Normally the talk needs to be submitted to PWG for review "at least" 1 week (should be 2 weeks) before the conference, but you gave us basic no time to comment on it... Please find my comments below and I will let PAC decide whether you can deliver the talk or not. 

 - Motivation part: it is good to summarize "jet in vacuum" and "jet in medium", but I am not sure how you will connect to the results you are going to show. 

 - p.4: BEMC can also use as trigger

 - p.4: It would be nice to mention HFT only for 2014 - 2016 run 

 - p.8: LargerRg --> Larger Rg  (and others) 

 - before p9: I would think Youqi's rc in pp 200 is also good to show. 

 - p.11: the plot doesn't have "STAR preliminary" 

 - p.13: q2 --> q_2

Please also answer/address Isaac's comments/suggestions, I agree with them. 

Cheers,

Yi

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Research Fellow
Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica
E-Mail: yiyang429 AT gate.sinica.edu.tw
Tel: +886-2-2789-6709
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original message-----
From:Mooney, Isaac<isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
To:STAR HardProbes PWG<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 04:43:18
Subject: Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] STAR presentation by Tanmay Pani for ICNFP 2024 submitted for review
Hi Tanmay,

Since the talk is tomorrow, I’m going to push this to STAR-talks now so Barbara can see it ASAP. But please address my comments, and Nihar’s and Yi’s if they have any before tomorrow at 10 AM EDT. 

Thanks,

Isaac

General:

Published results should have citations, e.g. on s. 3, s. 7 (for SoftDrop, CollinearDrop, etc.)

When MC or theory are shown (e.g. s. 6, 8, ...), there should be some mention of it (e.g. what the model includes, the level of agreement, what we can infer from it, etc.). If you don't want to mention it because it breaks from your talk's flow, you can ask whoever made the plot for a version without the MC/theory overlaid.

Please go back through and think about motivation, conclusions, and outlook for each measurement. It won't always be clear for non-STAR people why we're making some of these measurements and what fundamental physics they can help us learn about now, and how they can prompt future improvements in the field (e.g. theory refinements, etc.)

4. 

You might want to mention that the BEMC is also used as a trigger.

"Heavy Flavor Tracker (HFT)" seems not to be color-matched well to the diagram.

6. Either "t_{f} \propto 1/(\Delta R)^{2}" or "t_{f} \sim 1/(\Delta R)^{2}"

7. 

"Remove" -> "Reduce"

"colldrop" is non-standard. Also "O_{groomed}" makes it seem like the observable defined on the radiation that was groomed away, rather than the observable defined on the radiation left in the jet after grooming. This would be fixed by writing the standard "O_{g}". It would also be good to make clear that this is a modification to the theoretical definition e.g. in 1.1 here https://inspirehep.net/files/cba36f38e281705d5a8484758cc0422a.

"first 3 splits" seems arbitrary if this is an observable definition (of course this is the number that was possible in the measurement, but that's not what's said here). So recommend just "first N splits". Also if you're going to mention iterative SoftDrop here you should at least have a link to a talk that includes STAR iterative SD results, or even better include a slide in the talk. If neither of those works, it should be removed from this slide.

11. 

How can you conclude from the ratio alone that it's a stronger preference for pions in jets, rather than say a weaker preference for protons in jets, with the amount of pions / area unchanged?

At this point the talk starts to morph a bit too much into a list of results. This measurement uses some clever techniques to handle the background(s) and it would be a good thing to highlight (even just with cartoons would be fine) rather than just showing the result/conclusion, especially since you have some white space left on the slide. There also doesn't seem to be any transition or continuity between any of the measurements mentioned in the 'Jets in medium' section. 

12. 

It's a bit confusing that you draw the overlapping circles diagonally across from each other because this could mean equally that the different curves are different centralities, or that the different ends of a single curve are different centralities. I would recommend moving them out of the plot, just to its right, vertically separated from each other so they clearly correspond to the different curves, so no one in the audience gets confused.

It would be nice to mention that although the LIDO overestimates hard-fragmented D0-jets, it does so the same way for peripheral and central collisions so that the resulting RCP-type ratio actually agrees between data and LIDO at highest z. Also, that LIDO predicts a relatively flat ratio with much more suppression, while the data is relatively unsuppressed until high-z is also a striking feature of the plot that isn't mentioned.

In my opinion, it's not ideal to start discussion of a measurement with the theory comparison. First we should tell people what we measured, and what it tells us on its own, then what the comparison to theory tells us.

13. If you need more room in the talk to address some of the comments I gave you above while staying on time, feel free to remove the event shape engineering slides. Not that I don't think they're interesting obviously, but the q2-differential spectra ratios aren't quite telling us as much about jet modification as the Nout/Nin ratios will once they're finalized. If you do end up keeping it though, make sure to cite the ALICE result, and also this slide would need a physics message/conclusion.

14. For people unfamiliar with STAR's forward upgrade, it's not clear from the slide how we suddenly get "access to forward rapidity".

14. Consider adding in the acoplanarity preliminary results, so when they're mentioned here it isn't a bit out of the blue. They were shown at QM'22 so fairly recent still, and paper on the way, if you left it out because you're trying to show just the most recent measurements.

16. "yield"

On Sep 2, 2024, at 15:30, Tanmay Pani <tanmay.pani.rutgers AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I noticed today drupal had dropped my previous submission (couldn't find it in my blog entries). Fortunately this one seems to have succeeded.

Please have a look here 

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/slides_5.pdf

Thanks

On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 3:26 PM <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,

Tanmay Pani (tp543 AT physics.rutgers.edu) has submitted a material for a 
review, please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/68761

Deadline: 2024-08-26
---
If you have any problems with the review process, please contact 
webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov