STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Helen Caines <helen.caines AT yale.edu>]

Hi Diana,

  I have a few more comments on these very nice data.

General: 

Please remove The WUT text in your footer. We only show our Institutions on the title page. Its up to you, but I strongly suggest you add your name. Not everyone knows you yet and you never know if a future employer is in the audience and wanting to jot down your name to look you up later.

Less important  but I find putting in small font the data and conference name is useful when people copy your slides so  they know where to go and look to find the whole talk.

Also a small detail but it made me pause to understand what K^ch meant. Its more common to use K^{+-} where the +- is a symbol available in ppt, latex.

Throughout the talk, are you errors stat only, or stat+sys?

1) In the title I think it should be two-kaon not two-kaons

Slide 2b) Are these plots from you? If so can you make the lines thicker and the green a darker green? It's hard to see. If they come from a paper I understand there’s nothing you can do, either way can you add the reference(s) to the theory 

Slide 3) Kaons can provide —> Kaons provide

It's not clear, maybe it will be when you speak, how the ALICE figure relates to your text on the right. 

For your first set of bullets, each point is true, but maybe you could add a sub-bullet saying why this is helpful to extract a physics message. i.e. why does it matter that there is less resonance contamination? Why does a smaller hadronic cross-section matter? why does it matter that there’s a strange quark?

Slide 4) Given all the datasets we now have, you should add its Au-Au and that the 39 GeV is from BES-I

Is the dE/dx plots really pt*q? Shouldn’t it be p*q?

Slide 5) Can you find a better quality figure for the left plot?  Same questions about the dE/dx plot as for slide 4

Slide 6: strenght —> strength

Slide 7 and 8: can you add that these are Au-Au and also sqrt(s_NN). I think the pt and rapidity windows the measurements is from is important too.

Slide7: Maybe its worth noting that the FSI models all give equal quality fit?

Why is terminator not on the 10-70 and 0-70 39 GeV plots? 

Is it true that both give good fits? It seems Terminator is significantly above for q<0.1

Slide 9: Can you keep the same color doing for terminator and uRQMD as in the previous slide?

Please add all important info into the plots such that if someone just copies the plot the information that its Au-Au, K0s-K0s, pt range y range etc remains.

On slide 8 you call it Therminator, on slide 9 Therminator2, which is it?

Slide 10:  Given you show the ALICE data on in intro slide, why not include those results on the sqrt(s) dependence plot? I understand that there are likely different pt ranges going into the analysis, but is it so different that one can’t compare? If the ALICE data continue to show the same trends is a question I had.

Your first bullet seems to contradict your second bullet. 

Are the source sizes really the same? I know the errors are large, but are many of them due to the same underlying source and hence highly correlated?

Slide 13: You call out the reason for Achasov being “high” but its the Martin that really stands out. Maybe you could generalize your statement to something like “ the radii extracted and a0 mass in the parameterization are anti correlated”?

Slide 14: How do I see your red bullet conclusion from the data?

Is it expected that the source sizes should be different for K+K0 vs K0K0? Can fixing the K+-K0 source size to the K0K0 allow us to pin down the a0 mass?

Is Martin plotted correctly? How come for this parameterization the source size difference changes sign?

Given on slide 3 you mention these are complimentary results to those from the pions. Maybe you could add a slide comparing to them? Are the radii the same, different? 

Slide 15: It would be great to add an “outlook” slide at the end. Its for you to decide what the outlook is. But thoughts I have are. 

Is there any hope to reduce the uncertainties so you can use the data to decide which parameterization is correct?

Are we going to be abel to put constraints on the a0 mass?

Can you get a finer centrality binning? 

Is it worth looking at the BES-II data?

***********************

Yale University
Physics Dept. - Wright Lab.
PO Box 208120
New Haven, CT 06520
203-432-5831
***********************
she/her/hers
"Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass.
It's about learning how to dance in the rain." - Vivian Greene

On Jun 8, 2022, at 8:29 AM, Diana Pawłowska via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Xiaofeng,

Thank you for your comments. 
I included them in my presentation and added comments, which appeared during the STAR overview's rehearsal (connected with the comparison plot on slide 14).
The updated version (v3) is under the same link.

1. They are fits.

2. I would prefer to have the same markers as it was in the K0K0 analysis. Different markers are for systems KchKch, K0K0, K0Kch.

Best regards,
Diana

Wolny od wirusów. www.avast.com

wt., 7 cze 2022 o 18:42 Xiaofeng Luo via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> napisał(a):

Hi Diana,

     Nice presentation.
     Please find my suggestions/comments below :

     1. slide 12, Please write down what the curve is, fitting curve or
plotting curve with some R values ?
                 if those curves are fitting results, could you list the
best fitted chi2/ndf into a table ?

     2. slide 13, could you please re-make this plot with different
marker style instead of using different color ?

     3. slide 14, The comparison plot is confusion. To make it clear,
please re-make this plot with proper marker/colors.

     With those implemented, I sign off.

Thank you,
Best Regards,
Xiaofeng

On 2022/5/28 01:32, webmaster--- via Star-cf-l wrote:
> Dear star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Diana Pawlowska (diapaw93 AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a review,
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59746
>
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
> _______________________________________________
> Star-cf-l mailing list
> Star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-cf-l

--
Xiaofeng Luo
Professor of Physics
College of Physical Science and Technology
Central China Normal University
Luoyu Road 152, Wuhan China
Office Phone #: +86-27-67867500

_______________________________________________
Star-cf-l mailing list
Star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-cf-l

_______________________________________________
Star-cf-l mailing list
Star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-cf-l