STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Ziyue,

Thanks for the updated materials — I think they’re much improved. Sorry it’s taken a while to get back to you. I have some responses for you below, but I think at this point from my perspective you're ready for a GPC request. Let’s see how the other conveners feel.

Thanks,

Isaac

Paper:

Pg. 6

> It’s still not clear what you mean by a double expectation in the text explanation. Is it an expectation over the entire sample of tracks of: the expectation of dE/dx for a particular track? Something like this could be stated explicitly then. Right now it’s confusing at least to me because you say “of *the* track”.

Pg. 8

> This reads better, thank you.

Pg. 11

> Thanks for carefully walking me through your systematic uncertainties here, but I don’t think I saw an answer to my question about the TOF Eff. uncertainty. Could you explain how you arrive at the 10x lower uncertainty for the combined than the 2012?

Pg. 15

> I think I was oversimplifying the combination of Fig. 2b and Fig. 3 — it definitely wouldn’t work as a single plot; I may have been getting tired at the time :). I don’t necessarily agree that it would be “weird” to have current Fig. 2a as a standalone figure, since you have an entire table (III) already dedicated to the combination of the results, on its own. I also think the self-imposed rule that you need one and only one figure per one physics quantity is an artificial restriction. So I still think it would potentially be a simplification to have the more conceptually similar plots as subfigures within the same figure. But if the PAs have a strong opinion, that’s fine, as the GPC may have its own opinion about the structure of the figures anyway.

Currently the last sentence of the paper (v1) seems a bit oddly placed. Seems like it was left over when the paragraph was restructured or still needs to be modified to fit the new structure. [Also, l. 349 -> “quarkonia”]

Analysis note:

Pg. 8

> Not sure, but I may have had the data and embedding curves flipped in my head. So I agree with your response and actually withdraw my original comment.

On Sep 19, 2024, at 11:52, Ziyue Zhang <zzhan70 AT uic.edu> wrote:

Dear coveners,

I'd like to ask you to kindly put the review of my paper proposal updates on your to-do list, including the new version of paper draft, analysis note, and response to the previous comments.

I planned to bring this up during the Sep 19 PWG meeting, but since the HP2024 is imminent, we need to give priority to the speakers, which is totally reasonable to me to postpone my presentation.

Therefore I'm writing this separate email to bring this update to your attention.

Best,

Ziyue