STAR HardProbes PWG

[Gabe Dale-Gau <gdaleg2 AT uic.edu>]

Hi Isaac,

Thank you for your comments. I have implemented them and updated the page with a new version of the abstract.

Please find detailed responses below.

Sincerely,

Gabe

13. Either “studied as a function of [singular noun]” or “studied with jet selections ___” So e.g. “Of jet radius ($R = …$) and jet constituent pT selection (p_T^const…)” But given that in the next sentence you talk about the dependent variable of the plots being pT and \Delta R, maybe here it makes more sense to use the latter formulation to avoid redundancy.

 

Done. I agree this reads better.

14.
         "> 2.0, 3.0 GeV/c"

 

Done.

        I usually use “cons” for constituents since “const” is a common abbreviation of “constant”. It’s not confusing for people in the field since it’s clear from context, but might as well avoid the risk altogether.

 

Done.

16. Do you mean published measurements here? If so would be good to specify “alongside published jet shapes…”

 

I do not mean published measurements here. In order to arrive at ratios as a function of \Delta R, we first find identified hadron (Proton, Pion) jet shapes. We included this because it would also be an interesting result on its own, and happens to be a necessary step in the analysis. I can remove the language if you think it distracts from the main point of the abstract.

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:36 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Gabe,

See below for some comments on your nice abstract.

Thanks,
Isaac

13. Either “studied as a function of [singular noun]” or “studied with jet selections ___” So e.g. “Of jet radius ($R = …$) and jet constituent pT selection (p_T^const…)” But given that in the next sentence you talk about the dependent variable of the plots being pT and \Delta R, maybe here it makes more sense to use the latter formulation to avoid redundancy.
14.
         "> 2.0, 3.0 GeV/c"
        I usually use “cons” for constituents since “const” is a common abbreviation of “constant”. It’s not confusing for people in the field since it’s clear from context, but might as well avoid the risk altogether.
16. Do you mean published measurements here? If so would be good to specify “alongside published jet shapes…”

> On Oct 31, 2024, at 13:28, webmaster AT star.bnl.gov wrote:
>
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Gabriel Dale-Gau (gdaleg2 AT uic.edu) has submitted a material for a review, 
> please have a look:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="https%3A%2F%2Fdrupal.star.bnl.gov%2FSTAR%2Fnode%2F69826&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C6a9ca0079a234b578c3408dcfeb36638%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638665293699580052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CC7sh1crYct49mezz3hqOXcRFGoWheehhyrLqw2XOKQ%3D&reserved=0
>
> Deadline: 2024-10-31
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact 
> webmaster@https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="http%3A%2F%2Fwww.star.bnl.gov%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cgdaleg2%40groute.uic.edu%7C6a9ca0079a234b578c3408dcfeb36638%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C638665293699580052%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KJK%2Bk9KNcYXDQ1DtkyVhrWIbDc6tWhPfRSLtortMAa4%3D&reserved=0