STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Diana Pawłowska <diapaw93 AT gmail.com>]

Dear All, 

I took into account the comments that appeared during today's rehearsal. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
The updated version is on the same link.

Best regards,
Diana

Wolny od wirusów. www.avast.com

śr., 8 cze 2022 o 22:45 Diana Pawłowska <diapaw93 AT gmail.com> napisał(a):

Dear Helen, 

Thank you very much for all these comments.
I updated the presentation, and the new version is under the same link.

Please find answers to your questions below:

śr., 8 cze 2022 o 16:14 Helen Caines <helen.caines AT yale.edu> napisał(a):

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?

For K0K0 errors are stat+sys, for K0K+- only stat.

 

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. 

The ALICE figure shows good agreement between source sizes for all kaon combinations, especially Antonelli and Achasov parametrizations. Such compatibility between the systems allows us to conclude that a0 resonance could be a tetraquark. So this plot is a motivation to see what it looks like for lower energies.

 

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?

During the talk, I'll plan to explain that kaons obtain information about different regions of the collision interactions.

 

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?

You are right, it should 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

I tried to find a better quality figure, but unfortunately, I couldn't.

 

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? 

Currently, Therminator2 works only for the central collision for lower BES energies. I'll mention it during the talk.

 

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

Better fits are from the UrQMD model.

 

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?

It should be Therminator2. 

 

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.

This is difficult as ALICE has published results for 4 different mT intervals, and radii is from 4.4 - 6 fm. I attach a screen with the data (Phys.Rev.C 92 (2015) 054908).

Your first bullet seems to contradict your second bullet. 

In the second bullet, it was about the agreement between models and FSI parametrizations. I clarified it.

 

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?

The difference between the radius values is very small and is smaller than the statistical uncertainties.

 

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?

This conclusion is made because the radii from the K0K0 and K0K+ analysis are close to each other.

 

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?

In the ALICE publication we have (Physics Letter B 774 (2017) 64-77):

 

I couldn't find information on determining the a0 mass. 

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

I checked it several times and these are the correct results. ALICE also had the same for Martin.

 

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? 

The 3D correlation function analysis shows that kaons give smaller source sizes than pions. One of the reasons for this difference is that they are less affected by resonance decays.

(WPCF 2019 presentation https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Nigmatkulov_wpcf2019_v1.pdf  - slide 12)

I would prefer not to add a comparison with pions to the presentation.

 

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

Best regards,
Diana 

Wolny od wirusów. www.avast.com

Wolny od wirusów. www.avast.com