STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Sijie,

I’m happy to see the OO data being used, as there was considerable interest 
at Hard Probes this year. In particular, I talked to Aleksas, who was 
presenting this work: 
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1339555/contributions/6040954/ (shame the pdf 
isn’t posted). He was arguing actually that jet+h would be even more 
interesting than h+jet results in OO. Although this question isn’t 
necessarily related to the abstract, have you thought about looking into this 
as well, e.g. for Quark Matter? 

As for comments on your nice abstract, please see below.

Title: “...jet yield measurements in…"

10. Here I would talk a bit more about the effect that decreasing system size 
is expected to have on the medium (e.g. smaller, colder, etc.) so it’s clear 
to a reader that it wasn’t an experimental surprise that we don’t see 
anything in small systems (in the hard sector).

12. 
        “provide”
        “pinpoint the critical system size for the onset of jet quenching” 
should be reworded. A given system (OO) cannot pinpoint the onset of jet 
quenching — it would require at least two. Also, the word “critical" is a bit 
misleading here, as it might evoke critical behavior of the medium in the 
reader’s mind, whereas the absence of jet quenching in a system can tell us 
at most that the medium is small/cold/fleeting enough not to modify jets 
within precision, or that the effect it has is small compared to cold nuclear 
matter effects, which is a different question than existence/non-existence. I 
would suggest simply: “...200 GeV bridge the gap between these small and 
large systems.” since your previous and last sentence already make your case 
anyway.

14. “first measurement of jet quenching” is skipping a step. Semi-inclusive / 
inclusive jet yields and their ratio is the measurement; jet quenching is the 
(possible) physical cause of the (potential) yield modifications.

18. I understand why you wrote this, but I would remove the last clause “and 
are complementary…”. Of course it will be great to see OO results at LHC 
energies as well, and compare to the extent possible. However, I think your 
abstract should highlight that these data are unique in the world for the 
near future, and yours would be the first measurement of its kind to be done 
in OO anywhere. When the LHC has taken OO data in 2025, they can write in 
their abstracts that they are complementary to existing measurements at RHIC.

General: "semi-inclusive hadron+jet" and “event mixing technique” are fairly 
compact jargon. If you have space, I would recommend unspooling these a bit, 
e.g. “jets recoiling from high-momentum hadron triggers” for the first one.

Thanks,
Isaac

On Oct 13, 2024, at 11:15, webmaster AT star.bnl.gov wrote:

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

Sijie Zhang (sijiezhang AT mail.sdu.edu.cn) has submitted a material for a  
review, please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/69372

Deadline: 2025-03-16
---
If you have any problems with the review process, please contact  
webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov