STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[webmaster AT star.bnl.gov]

Dear star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,

Hanna Zbroszczyk ( hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl ) has commented on a material  
originally submitted by Ayon Mukherjee ( mukherjee AT caesar.elte.hu ) at
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/Zimanyi-School-2022/Kaon-femtoscopy-L%C3%A9vy-sources-200-GeV-Au-Au-collisions-STAR

Comment:
Dear Ayon,
Find my comments below:
I did some wording of your abstract, and I propose to modify it accordingly:
Femtoscopy can probe the space-time geometry of the particle-emitting source  
in heavy-ion collisions. In particular, femtoscopy of like-sign kaon pairs  
may shed light on the origin of non-Gaussianity of the spatial emission  
probability density. The momentum correlations between like-sign kaon pairs  
are measured in STAR data from √sNN = 200 GeV Au + Au collisions at RHIC.  
Preliminary results hint at the possible existence of non-Gaussian, Lévy-  
stable sources — and signal the presence of an anomalous diffusion process  
— for identically-charged kaon-pairs.

I removed the last sentence from your abstract as the searches for the  
critical point are not discussed in your draft.

Line 13-15: As in heavy-ion collisions, femtoscopic correlations describe  
correlations of hadrons, and not only QS plays a role. Additionally, they are 
 
sensitive to FSI as well. Please modify your statement accordingly.
Line 22-23, please write the correct definition of the S function (I assume  
you intend to use source function formalism)
Line 23-24, N_1, N_2 are not fully introduced, if you speak a language of  
probability (one sentence above), please explain the interpretation of N_1  
and N_2 distributions
Formula 3: please add that this is valid only for bosons taking into account  
only QS effect, as this formula is not universal; clarification of this would 
 
help to avoid misunderstandings
Line 73: remove ; between that; at
Line 74: by Ref. [23] -> by [23]
Line 76, 78: round these numbers till 2 significant digits
Line 82: any reason you call heavy tail? I suggest to remove heavy
Line 100: [cf. Eqn. (13)] -> Eq. (13)
Line 116: [cf. Fig. 1] -> at Fig. 1
Line 117: mention statistics you use, what do you mean you use 50% of  
statistics?
Line 119 (and other places): "cut" is a jargon, instead use please "selection 
 
criteria", or define what you mean by "cut"
Figure 2; description: & -> , and
Line 125+ instead these 4 bullets, better describe how you construct  
numerator of the cf, denominator including information about the loop over  
all analysed events
Eq 21: \epsilon is undefined
Line 151: comments: correlation function can not be corrected on Coulomb as  
it is measured, physical interaction between correlating particles; instead  
include that the correlation function shows also correlations due to Coulomb  
repulsion, etc..
Line 176: here you mention limited statistics, before you wrote before that  
you use only half of existing data; instead it is better to write that with  
current statistics, this study ...
Line 182: again, any reason to call the tail heavy?

Thanks,
Hanna

---
If you have any problems with the review process, please contact  
webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov