STAR HardProbes PWG

[Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>]

Hello Nihar,

Thank you very much for the comments, I have updated a new version.  This is also included comments given to me during my group's rehearsal, which should hopefully also address your concern on the amount of material, The two-point results, as they were shown at the pervious hard probes as preliminaries will not be focused on for a long time: but will be good to show that the figures are now final and that the paper is coming soon.

Slide 2:  I added detector acceptance information as well as some information regarding track selection and jet finding
Slide 3: This is for the nominal EEC, whereas the definition on the preliminary request is for the charge-weighted EEC.  It is confusing as I called it "Charged EEC", whereas the nominal EEC does use charged tracks, this was meant to reflect that we are now weighting the energy product by the charge.  I have changed all instances of it in the talk to "charge-weighted EEC" let me know if this makes it more clear.

Slide 4: I now define the E3C here, and provide a formula

Slide 5 (Now Slide 6): Yes, the STAR plots not labeled preliminary are the final paper figures that the GPC chair has requested approval for.

Slide 6 (Now Slide 7): Rephrased as: Since location of turnover ∝ 𝚲_𝐐𝐂𝐃/〖𝐩_𝐓〗^𝐉𝐞𝐭 , scaled curves will turn over within      the same region

Have provided reference for claim that E3C/EEC depends on alpha S

Slide 17-21: I am continuing to practice this, If I do not have enough time to explain everything clearly, I will move the discussion of the three-point subtraction to backup.

Conclusion: Have highlighted that we observe a tension with monte-carlo models specially in two-point charge-weighted distribution, implying that hadronization dynamics not fully described by these models introduce two-point correlations, rather than three-point.

Best,
Andrew

On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 9:40 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for your nice slides, Please find my comments below.

General:
_You have not discussed track and event selection, dataset. Etc
_ also need to discuss jet selection and jet recon information for this
analysis


Slide2:
You could mention kinematic coverage of TPC and BEMC like eta, pT , etc
range

Slide3:
_ this EEC definition does not include charge into consideration. Like
your previous preliminary request : (slide5 of
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_Request_6_20_24.pdf
)
_ Please make it consistent if this is what you have used in this
analysis.

Slide5:
Is this an updated final plot using new embedding that will go to paper
draft?

Slide6:
_As location of transition… -> this bullet is not clear, please rephrase
it

Slide7:
_…has direct dependence on alpha_s -> Provide references
_ Mention how do you define EEEC, similar _expression_ as EEC

Slide8:
_Shows movement of transition region withjet momentum -> The trend does
not show the same especially for 30-50 GeV/c case.
What is the “transition region” in this case?

Slide17-21:
There are already lot of material for this talk.
Better to reduce these slides to one slide just to motivate your plan
for heavy-ion collisions analysis.
Otherwise, audience will be lost.

Conclusion slide:
It is not clear what is the main physics message from this analysis?

Best
Nihar






On 2024-09-10 23:07, webmaster AT star.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/68886
>
> Deadline: 2024-09-22
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov