STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk <hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl>]

Dear Eugenia,

Thank you very much.

With this implemented I sign off.

Thank you,

Hanna

PS. I add you to the agenda for Thursday’s mtg.

Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk

PhD DSc Eng, Professor WUT

E-mail: hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl

Tel: +48 22 234 5851 (office)

Address:

Warsaw University of Technology

Faculty of Physics

Nuclear Physics Division

Koszykowa 75

Office: 117b (via 115)

00-662 Warsaw, Poland

Wiadomość napisana przez Eugenia Khyzhniak <eugenia.sh.el AT gmail.com> w dniu 05.10.2020, o godz. 12:08:

Dear Hanna,

I've updated my presentation (changed only 7 slide with CFs).

Best regards,

Eugenia

пн, 5 окт. 2020 г. в 12:12, Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk <hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl>:

Hi Eugenia, Grigory and All,

I think your nice studies need more discussion, but I do not intend to slow down Eugenia’s approval.

I followed all your presentations and did not find results for higher kT bins.

Thank you very much for the update now. I was missing it.

You always present radii, lambda parameters as a function of kT but not the correlation functions themselves.

Your examples always relate to lower kT, which I understand you do not show all of them as there are too many.

I would like to understand what happens in other kT bins, and this is my request for the upcoming PWG meeting.

There is no need to discuss anything once again but to show other examples for different kT bins for all colliding systems.

Concerning the presentation, I request to use just these plots you requested for preliminary labels during the Collaboration meeting.

Concerning plots from the conference draft, replace figures at your slide seven by this one from the Collaboration Meeting meeting.

Thanks,

Hanna

Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk

PhD DSc Eng, Professor WUT

E-mail: hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl

Tel: +48 22 234 5851 (office)

Address:

Warsaw University of Technology

Faculty of Physics

Nuclear Physics Division

Koszykowa 75

Office: 117b (via 115)

00-662 Warsaw, Poland

Wiadomość napisana przez Eugenia Khyzhniak <eugenia.sh.el AT gmail.com> w dniu 05.10.2020, o godz. 09:06:

Dear All,

here in attachments are examples of correlation functions and their fit with difference Coulomb radius taken into account.

Best regards,

Eugenia

пн, 5 окт. 2020 г. в 09:53, Grigory Nigmatkulov <nigmatkulov AT gmail.com>:

Dear Hanna,

>Concerning your fits, using a Gaussian source here leads to discrepancies as you see between your data and fits.

We explicitly showed how different source assumptions affect the fits. Please follow the links from the last presentation.

We discussed these differences during the year. As we discussed, difference source and non-femtoscopic form assumptions will be in a paper.

I also want to notice that depending on the kT bin and multiplicity the Gaussian vs. non-Gaussian assumption will give different results.

For small systems the influence of (mini)jets and resonance decays will play a larger role than for large systems.

We presented those estimations using the UrQMD, Hijing and PYTHIA event generators. Only two of them contain

hard and semihard processes. NONE of the three describe the data to the level we would like it to be.

>I agree that one should use the same parametrization for all kT intervals but your results clearly show that for higher kT fit does not work well.

What do you propose if MC generators fail to describe non-femtoscopic effects and underlying event?

We explicitly say which assumptions have been used in the analysis and what results we have.

For the given assumptions one will obtain certain results. That is very similar to the ONLY small system femtoscopy paper

from 2009-10 by Zibi and Mike.

>For future, (if you have not done it yet) I would also suggest to see how simple Gaussian looks (without Coulomb correction) like to study the lambda parameter's behavior.

>It looks for higher kT interval to get with such parametrization a better agreement between data and fit.

For small systems the Coulomb effect is small and IS TAKEN into account in systematic uncertainty estimation! Eugenia, please send the figure of merit.

As for the curve at small q itself, the Coulomb effect is there but non-Gaussian structure dominates. Anyhow, the first few bins have almost no influence on the fit

and fit quality.

>Meantime please remove from your presentation all plots that did not get preliminary labels and discuss your results during the upcoming PWG CF meeting

Please specify which figures do you want to be updated and what exactly do you want to be changed? Eugenia can present the results again this Thursday.

The talk is scheduled for Friday morning.

Cheers,

Grigory

<CF_default_cent0.png>