STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Brennan,

Please send out a set of slides following the preliminary request template (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Prelim_Request_template.pdf) as soon as possible. Working for now from your https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/20240911_Preliminary_Request_Plots_0.pdf, I have a few comments, below.

Thanks,

Isaac

2. I think I may have asked this before, but why are tracks allowed to go to 50 GeV? Typically we cut off at 30 GeV because the momentum resolution. Of course counts above 30 are probably negligible, so I'm sure it doesn't have a large effect.

8. Looking at your other email where you show the plot from the 200 GeV analysis (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/starnotes/private/psn0685) I'm still not sure I understand why the 200 GeV analysis didn't have the problem you saw. But okay, we can look into this after Hard Probes as long as it is clear in the talk/preliminary plot that the mult, N, is actually TOFmult.

17. 

As of the update on September 5th, the final result looked like it was showing some signs of leveling out a bit at the highest multiplicities (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/20240905_BSchaefer_Multiplicity_Corrections.pdf pg. 26). Now though, albeit with much larger uncertainty, it looks like the J/psi yield is increasing exponentially with multiplicity. Of course, this is largely due to the last datapoint, which still visually seems to be consistent with the previous iteration's datapoint. The main reason I bring this up is just that when this plot is shown in the talk, I think a) there will be some interest that it seems so much higher than at the LHC at high multiplicity, and b) it will be important not to overstep in the claims exactly because the uncertainties are large. If we were to try to interpret this difference though, do you have some physical intuition for why it would be larger at STAR?

Also on the comparison between the previous version and now, it seems that the location of the datapoints on the x-axis moved. Why is that? I don't remember if you mentioned it during your analysis meeting update.

On Sep 16, 2024, at 11:34, Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Brennan,

Thanks for letting us know. But this email thread is just for collecting preliminary requests, so it would be great if you (and anyone else who hasn’t done so yet) could add yours here since you have it.

Thanks,

Isaac

On Sep 16, 2024, at 11:07, Brennan Schaefer <brs521 AT lehigh.edu> wrote:

Greetings HP2024 team,

I'm going over my talk this afternoon within our local group here at Lehigh.  After this iteration I should be able to pass it quickly along to you all.

best,

b

On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 9:50 AM Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hello Isaac,

Apologies for the late reply, here are the links to my initial preliminary request and the follow up.  Please let me know if you have any additional questions
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/atamis/TamisPreliminary-Request-82924
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/atamis/Tamis-Hard-Probes-2024-Preliminary-Update

Best,

Andrew

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 3:10 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Hard Probes presenters,

I would appreciate it if you could reply to this message with a link to your preliminary request slides (if applicable) and a sentence or two describing any follow-ups you are currently implementing from previous meeting discussions before preliminary status can be given, as well as an estimate for the time/date when you will send a final set of request slides. Sorry to those of you who have already sent slides in some form to other email chains — it would just be helpful for the conveners if we could collect the latest and most up-to-date links all in one place as we review.

Thanks,
Isaac