STAR HardProbes PWG

["Evdokimov, Olga" <evdolga AT uic.edu>]

Dear All,

Many thanks  to Jana and Helen for bringing up the point about proposed merger of abstracts 10 and 13. Unfortunately, I was not able to  attend the meeting  today and hear any rationale behind this move. From the UIC analysis team side - we most strongly oppose this proposal seeing no overlap in physics message, techniques, or anything else but the word “jet.”

Best regards,

Olga

---

From: star-hp-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov <star-hp-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Helen Caines <helen.caines AT yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 5:43:02 PM
To: star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] HP-PWG meeting Oct. 17, 10 AM BNL time + QM merging

 

CAUTION: External Sender

Hi All,

Sorry to chime in late too, but I would like to echo Jana’s question on the rational behind merging the B/M ratios (10) in jets and the EEC abstract (13).

Maybe I am missing something but I don’t see how these two topics can be discussed  in a 15 min talk and have a coherent uniting physics message across the two analyses. I understand the desire to not submit too many abstracts, but we also need to be clear what the overarching physics message of each abstract will be so the speaker can tell a good story. Some of the worst QM talks occur when collaborations try to merge too many analyses with differing focuses in one talk.

Helen


Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 17, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Bielčíková Jana <bielcikova AT ujf.cas.cz> wrote:
>
>  Btw, what is the rationale behind combining B/M ratios in jets (10) with correlators (13)?

This email originated from outside the University of Illinois System. Use caution when replying, clicking links, or opening attachments. DO NOT reply to any requests asking you to reply from a personal account or SMS.