STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

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

Dear Grigory,

Find me comments below. With those implemented I will sign off.

Thanks,

Hanna

Wiadomość napisana przez Grigory Nigmatkulov <nigmatkulov AT gmail.com> w dniu 12.07.2022, o godz. 18:21:

>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.

Putting BES-I and BES-II separately is better. Looks ok now.

>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.

That’s why guessing what you mean from context is difficult. I see the slides. I will not hear your presentation.

It is good to have slides clear, especially for those who will not hear your presentation but will take a look at the slides.

Modification accepted.

>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.

Good to have specified benefits of detector. Modification accepted.

>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.

Ok. 

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.

Looks better now.

> 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.

Good. 

> q_inv formuła is still incorrect 

Corrected.

Still incorrect. Should be: q_{inv} = \sqrt{(p_1 - p_2)^2 - (E_1 - E_2)^2} 

Check here for a reference: Phys.Rev.C83:064905,2011

>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.

Ok.

Cheers,

Grigory

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