STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Andrew,

Very nice slide, but you have many of them, are you able to finish them without too much rush in 15 min? My suggestion would the to trim a bit the end of the presentation, related to the extension to heavy ions, if you are out ot time.

Please find below comments from my side.

- s2: > 0.2 GeV/c -> pT > 0.2 GeV/c

I would remove "(R = 0.6)" as it looks like standar STAR selection. You mention R in the title of slide 5, which I think is enough

- s5 title: Two-Point -> Two-Point Correlator (it it's too long I would remove "Measurement")

- s5: I would move the reference under the figure

- s7: Is this used for both E3C and EEC (as the first bullet of the next slide says) ? It's a bit confusing why this slide is in this place not before slide 5

- s9: Remove "Preliminary Figure –" from the title

- s13: I don't see Inclusive black points on the plot

- s13,14: which Pythia8 tune do you use here ? Might be worth mentioning. 

- s15: Add what MC is used to get the curves. 

Cheers,

Barbara

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 9:28 AM Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hello all, 

I just landed in Japan, wanted to bump this email to see if there were any additional comments or if it’s ok to go to star talks?

Best,

Andrew

On Friday, September 20, 2024, Yi Yang <yiyang429 AT gate.sinica.edu.tw> wrote:

Thanks Andrew, I don't have any further comments on it.

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:Andrew Tamis<andrew.tamis AT yale.edu>
To:star-hp-l<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 04:47:08
Subject: Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] STAR presentation by Andrew Tamis for HP2024 submitted for review

Hello All,

I have updated the slides using only currently approved preliminaries.

Best,
Andrew

On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:03 PM Andrew Tamis <andrew.tamis AT yale.edu> wrote:

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

--

Andrew Tamis

Yale University

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Department of Physics

andrew.tamis AT yale.edu