STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Takafumi Niida <niida AT bnl.gov>]

Dear Grigory,

Nice slides. Please find my comments below.

s3: Resolution of the bottom table is not so good. If possible, please replace it with better one.

s8: In 1st bullet, “at kinetic freeze-out” This would be true only when using hadrons (which is the most of cases though…)

s9: In title, I would remove “in Au+Au Collisions” or replace it with “Heavy-Ion Collisions” since you show results from ALICE and other experiments and mention "2.76 TeV”

s10: 

- Left-bottom, larger than that those for -> larger than those for

- Right-top, since you give a talk on behalf of STAR, please remove STAR collaborator name (and conference name)

s11: Same comment on removing STAR collaborator name

s12: Same comment on removing STAR collaborator name except “Anna Kraeva’s talk”

s13: you may want to mention how the collectivity is studied/visible via Femtoscopy, e.g. kT dependence of radius

Once conveners approve your talk, I am also fine. So with these addressed, I will sign off. Enjoy the conference!

Next time, please post your slides well in advance, so that conveners and PAC have enough time to review the slides. Just to remind you that PAs are strongly encouraged to post their slides to PWG 2 weeks before conference/workshop starts. Thanks for your understanding.

Best regards,

Takafumi

On Jul 13, 2022, at 1:21, Grigory Nigmatkulov via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Hanna,

Thank you for your comments. Please find the new version of the talk here:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Nigmatkulov_Nucleus2022_v3.pdf

Please find the comments to your suggestions/comments below.

General comment:

Please say what you want me to update explicitly. Otherwise, it is hard to understand

what modifications should be made.

>Slide 2:

>Partially agreed. You mention as HINTS all main goals of the BES program. Some of them are not just hints.

>We have beautiful results from BES-I answering some questions. From your talk all look as hint which is not true. 

>Instead, specify, what we do know and what is still a question mark

I do not understand your comment. This is a motivation slide. We are still searching for the CP, we are still searching for

the first-order phase transition, the QGP turn-off signatures appear in Rcp and in some other observables

which are spread across the energies and we are still learning about them. Please explain what exactly you want me to modify.

>You mention existence of CP at low energies,  from the plot we see ~ 19.6 GeV. As we measure much lower energies, it is better to avoid term LOW for the collision energy of the order of >\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 19.6 GeV. And from the plot it is clear that CP is the goal of BES-I and BES-II.

I disagree. Low or high is relevant in the context. The context is clear. Anyhow, I modified the text accordingly.

>Indeed, so it is good to mention what we gain if we get higher statistics. I am sure people won’t connect directly benefits from detector upgrades and the gathered statistics.

I disagree. I added that we increase acceptance and PID capabilities with the detector upgrades.

>This slides is really hard to follow. It is much better to have graphical representation covering collision energies, baryon chemical potential, etc. This would be solved with updates plot from slide >2 (bottom right). Moreover, amount of text causes that is now  is hard to memorize it. Exact number of collected events and the year of data collection will not be memorize at all.

I updated slide 2 with different plot for datasets (statistics and mu_B) from your ICHEP talk.

Regarding slide 5:

>This slides is really hard to follow. It is much better to have graphical representation covering collision energies, baryon chemical potential, etc. This would be solved with updates plot from slide >2 (bottom right). Moreover, amount of text causes that is now  is hard to memorize it. Exact number of collected events and the year of data collection will not be memorize at all.

I disagree. There is a logic behind the slide sequence: motivation, detector upgrades with details, new sets that have been taken (year-by-year)

with an understanding which detector was installed which year.

 I think that this slide is absolutely okay. It was shown before and there were no issues with understanding by the audience.

I added the values for BES-I as you requested. It also contains important information about the beam rapidity and so on, which may be useful

for people if they would like to revisit the slides later.

> Graphical representation would solve this problem (you can pick proper plot from my QM presentation)

Thank you for pointing to the newer plot. I took the one from ICHEP and inserted it on slide 2.

> q_inv formuła is still incorrect 

Corrected.

>Slide 10:

> I mean whether you have positive, negative or neutral particles.

Charged and neutral kaons are separated by vertical line. TOF was mentioned in the part which is related to charged particles.

I added the word "charged" to make it very explicit.

Cheers,

Grigory

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