STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

["K.Mi" <mike1996 AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>]

Dear Hanna,

Thank you very much for the comments. We have considered all your suggestion and update the analysis note accordingly. 

Please see the reply and updated analysis note in the following links:

Reply:

star.bnl.gov

Update analysis note: 

star.bnl.gov

And also the related links:

Webpage: 

star.bnl.gov

Paper draft:

star.bnl.gov

Please kindly let us know if you have any comments or suggestion. We look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Thank you.

Best regards,

Ke for the PAs

On 17. Jul 2023, at 17:37, Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Ke,

Thanks for posting materials regarding the paper proposal.

Most of my comments come after reading the Analysis Note.

1. Theory correlation function section does not include QS effects. 

And how do you treat it in your calculation?

It would help if, for a good understanding of all sources of correlations, you separate all contributions in the p-d and d-d cases as well. 

Prepare such a figure and add to the theory part regarding descriptions of all correlations. 

2. Figures 19, 20. Surprisingly, splitting is so minor in your results.

Did you apply with an anti-merging additional cut on \delta \phi* and \delta \eta?

3. Page 23, missing reference to the figure ??

4. Momentum smearing. How do you calculate C(q_smear) correlation function? If you calculate q_smear, did you put the weight for smeared or not smeared momentum difference?

5. In Figure 33, all panels have a typo: protonn instead of a proton.

There is almost no effect for smeared function, which is surprising compared to other measurements (e.g., pion-kaon at BES, see Pawel paper proposal).

6. Systematic uncertainties. What is the contribution to systematics for taking into account different fitting ranges? It should be mentioned in the paper proposal, all together with other variables.

7. I see you applied the Barlow test. Which variables did not pass and were excluded from systematics due to limited statistics?

8. Prepare a table with % for which element included in your systematic studies, separately for p-p and p-d (separate centrality bins).

9. Data and model comparison. Since you use the LL model for data and CRAB for the model, can you please prove the consistency of these two approaches for considered small sources (between 1.5 and 2 fm for d-d and 2.5 and 3.5 fm for p-d?)? Please plot the correlation functions and compare them point by point. 

It is unusual that you use CRAB to calculate the model function and then extract the parameters of the interaction from the LL model. It would be better if you use LL model with fixed parameters f0 and d0 that you got from the experiment to calculate theoretical correlation function from SMASH, and then, to extract the source size. 

If you use both parametrizations based on different assumptions, one should prove their consistency for few source sizes (especially for these relatively low, of the order of 2 fm or even smaller). 

10. Correct the description of Fig. 51, 52 and 54.

11. Fig. 52 should have experimental data and the SMASH model with and without the coalescence (to prove that the coalescence scenario better describes data).

This figure should also be updated in the manuscript draft. 

Having those clarified, I will comment on the manuscript. 

Thanks,

Hanna

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

Wiadomość napisana przez K.Mi via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> w dniu 10.07.2023, o godz. 16:12:

Dear Conveners, 

The 'Light Nuclei Femtoscopy and Baryon Interactions in 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC’ paper is ready for PWG review. 

Please find the related materials below including webpage, paper draft, analysis note and reply to PWGC preview.  

Paper Webpage:

star.bnl.gov

Paper draft:

star.bnl.gov

Analysis note:

star.bnl.gov

Reply to PWGC preview comments:

star.bnl.gov

We would appreciate it if you could review the documents and provide us with your valuable comments and suggestions. 

Thank you.

Best regards,

Ke for the PAs

_______________________________________________
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