STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Sooraj,

Due to constrain of time, I will pass your presentation slides to 
startalk.
Please implements all the comments in the mean time.

Thank you
Nihar

On 2024-09-20 02:01, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Yi,
>    Thanks for the comments. Please find the updated version at the
> same location
>
> p.13: I would prefer to keep the color as it is as I am using solid
> and open markers
>
> //Sorry I missed this part before, could you please remind me how you
> get the conclusion of "for an estimated initial path length asymmetry
> of 0.2 fm"?//
> --- This is from the AMPT and model calculations. You can see in S17
> (current version) that <x> at eta = 1.0 is ~0.2 fm. I have removed
> these direct comparison to energy loss now as the exact value could
> depend on other details. This will be followed up in later studies
>
> thanks,
> Sooraj
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 5:51 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Sooraj,
> >
> > Thank you for this interesting measurement and slides.
> > Please find my comments below.
> >
> > “STAR Preliminary” needs to be included in all plots.
> >
> > Slide3:
> > You need to define what is  “v1”? Formula/expression.
> > _ Alternate observable - energy loss measurements without need for
> > p+p
> > -> This is not needed. Although I understand what do you mean
> > because
> > unlike R_AA/I_AA. It doesn’t tell about the amount of energy loss.
> > Jet
> > v1 is sensitive to path length dependence of energy loss but it can
> > not
> > measure energy loss as it is done in R_AA/I_AA. So in this context I
> >
> > would prefer to drop this.
> >
> > _need to introduce what is v1 and v2?
> >
> > Slide4:
> > _ I hope you will update the right cartoon that we made recently
> > _ “Asymmetry along impact parameter direction at finite
> > rapidity” ->
> > This is not clear to me. I think you mean to say here,
> > “asymmetries in
> > participant nucleons motion along the impact parameter axis within
> > finite rapidity”
> >
> > _”Creates difference in path length for hard produced partons at
> > finite
> > rapidity” -> By adding new cartoon, you can rephrase this as
> > “Creates
> > difference in path length for hard produced partons at forward and
> > backward direction”
> >
> > Slide5:
> > _Taking the same dependence for differential production in x and y,
> > ->
> > for outsider, it is not clear what are x and y ? Please mention it.
> >
> > Slide7:
> > Glauber + Theory -> Please mention what is “Theory” ?
> > I think, you can combine Slide6 and 7 to make a message that
> > “asymmetry
> > of participants along b direction”
> >
> > Slide8,9:
> > You can consider to combine these two slides.
> > And also if you can add that AMPT simulation plot with zero-v1 for
> > binary profile and non-zero v1 from bulk that would be clear
> > message.
> >
> > Slide10:
> > “hard-soft asymmetry” -> Please mention what is “hard-soft
> > asymmetry”
> > Define PL (path length ) before
> > _ “Can directly access Parton energy loss” -> This is not a
> > correct
> > question to impose. Rather I would say “Is jet v1 sensitive to the
> > path
> > length dependence of Parton energy loss?
> > Becasue as I mentioned before we are not measuring energy loss.
> >
> > Slide11:
> > I think it would be better to discuss EPD and ZDC detectors and how
> > do
> > you use those detectors to calculate 1st Order event plane angle
> > compromising 1-2 introductory slides
> >
> > Slide12:
> > _ Before this slide, I think you need to discuss how do you select
> > jet
> > in this measurement. How do you mitigate combinatoric jet using
> > pT^lead
> > cut?
> > _ You need to mention somewhere this slide, that “AuAu 200 GeV
> > (2014+2016) data” or similar
> > _ Need to mention “p_{T,jet}^{reco}” in stead of pT,jet; and you
> > need to
> > define “p_{T,jet}^{reco} = pT,jet - rho*A.”
> >
> > Slide13: You can keep this slide in backup
> >
> > Slide14:
> > _ Need to change x-axis title to “p_{T,jet}^{reco}”
> > _ Need to mention that are those purple tick markers are. (Bin size
> > of
> > “p_{T,jet}^{reco}”)
> > _ Please include what are the sources contributing to this
> > systematic
> > uncertainty.
> > _ R dependence -> jet R dependence
> >
> > Slide16:
> > _ Please cite this proceedings https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08789 [1]
> > for
> > bottom right figure
> >
> > Slide17:
> > Please keep Au+Au and Isobar data (from slide14) side-by side to
> > make a
> > statement “isobar collisions consistent with Au+Au within
> > uncertainties”
> > Slide18:
> > I think you don’t need to a dedicated slide for an outlook, you
> > can have
> > just one sentence at the end.
> >
> > Best
> > Nihar
> >
> > On 2024-09-11 20:32, webmaster AT star.bnl.gov wrote:
> > > Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > >
> > > Sooraj Radhakrishnan (skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov) has submitted a
> > material
> > > for a
> > > review, please have a look:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/68896
> > >
> > > Deadline: 2024-09-22
> > > ---
> > > If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> > > webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
>
> --
>
> Sooraj Radhakrishnan
>
> Research Scientist,
> Department of Physics
>
> Kent State University
>  Kent, OH 44242
>
> Physicist Postdoctoral AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> Berkeley, CA 94720
> Ph: 510-495-2473 [2]
>
> Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.08789__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GZwg20ppMNZeBpc5pIU67w_nmaLwecl2--XEMqcthXiKNc9VTXfpCaJ3w60w-VybQiwOvtffQh96U1SRAzLUHEJ5L2ybpAlouwY$
> [2] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473