STAR HardProbes PWG

[tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hi Ziyue,

 Sorry for suddenly jumping into the discussion. It is a nice paper. I 
have some comments to it >

Paper,
Line 16， η_c is the quarkonium with smallest rest mass not J/Psi.
Line 17-19, The bingding potential … QGP esistence. It is the color 
screening picture of suppression, Another more impratant picutre is the 
dynaimic dissociation. It is good to add it in your describing.
III data analysis , in the part, I suggest to add some In-bunch pileup 
correction disscusstion as in your analysis note.
Line 116, remove the speed of light.
Line 123, The BHT trigger efficiency is very sensitive to electron pT.  
the the pT cutoff is lowered to 3.5 is strange to me as the energy 
threshold is 4.3 GeV.  By looking at  your p+p 2015 data point in Figure 
2 (a), the first data point above 4 is higher than that at 2012 and 
2019, It is due to lower the pT to 3.5 GeV/c?
Line 128, + in the same event
Line 147, can we give an purity number here ?
Line 218, Better to have some describing for the BLUE method
Line 224, Can you list those sources?
Line 225, Better to specific how much been quote?
Line 243, The plot in Figure 2 (a).
Line 261, It is not clear to me what the Lansverg model is.


Qian Yang

On 2024-10-19 04:30, Mooney, Isaac wrote:
> 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
> > [1], analysis note [2], and response to the previous comments [3].
> > 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
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Run15_Jpsi_Dielectron_RpA_paperdraft_v1.pdf
> [2] https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AN_v4_0.pdf
> [3] 
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/pwg_review_response_draftv0_annotev3.pdf