STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

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

Dear Xiaofeng,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Please find the revised version on the same link and my replies inline.
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59832

Best regards,
Ashish


>     1. slide 3,  "more distinct signatures needed" I am not sure what
> do you mean for this sentence.
>                       We see non-monotonic energy dependence of
> C4/C2.  I suggest to revise or remove it.

This sentence is mentioned below the bullet: higher oder cumulant probe 
nature of transition.
I have added a sentence saying sign of higher order cumulant are 
sensitive to nature of transition.

Just to clarify, we mean though the signs of cumulants are sensitive to 
the nature of phase transition, up to fourth order we find same signs of 
cumulants from data and models with/without phase transition and hence 
more distinct signature are needed.


>     2. slide 4, "Goal: Identification of O(4) chiral criticality on
> the phase boundary."
>         I am not sure this is the goal of C6 and C8 measurement.
>         I suggest to change to "Goal: Probing signature of transition
> between QGP and hadronic phase"

Thank you for suggestion, I think the revised sentence is much easier to 
follow. It is updated.

>     3. Slide 14, title: Net-Proton Ratios -> Net-Proton Cumulant Ratios
Done

>     4. For the statistical errors of C8/C2, 200 GeV is much larger
> than 54.4 and 27 GeV, however,
>         For C6/C2, error bar of 200 GeV is smaller. Could you explain
> this ?  Did you calculate the statistical errors with bootstrap ?

The statistical error of C8/C2 is about 3.5-4 times larger than at 54 
GeV and 27 GeV.
For C6/C2 error at 200 GeV, it is not smaller than 54 GeV, but rather 
~2-2.5 times larger than error for C6/C2 at 54.4 GeV. As the summary 
plot (slide#14) has large scale for y-axis, please see the plot from the 
below link to see the errors more clearly:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Fig2_ratio_ordering_2.pdf

Now for C6/C2 at 27 GeV, I was using the Run10 data as the three ratios 
C4/C2, C5/C1 and C6/C2 are already published/preliminary from Run10 
while for Run18 that is not the case. Since run10 data was used which 
was of much lesser statistics, the errors were larger. But I think we 
can use the published C6/C2 from Run18. I have updated the plot with 
C6/C2 for 27 GeV from Run18. Now, the ratios C6/C2, C7/C1 and C8/C2 are 
from Run18 27 GeV.
Also I noticed, I was using 200 GeV C6/C2 preliminary data, I have 
updated it to the published ones, though there are no visible 
differences to the plot.