STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Anna Kraeva <annakraeva555 AT gmail.com>]

Dear Nu and Hanna,

Thank you for your comments. Please find my answers below.

____________________
Answers for Nu:

> 0) Fig.1: There is a clear contributions from pile-up, especially for the most central bin. Do we know the fraction of the pile-ups?

The fraction of the pile-up is about 1-1.5% for 0-5% central collision and <1% for the other centrality bins. Official centrality calibration does not take it into account. Since there are no correlations between particles produced in different collisions, the influence of the pile-up on femtoscopic parameters is negligible.

> 1) page 4 - PID plot: The dE/dx plot shows many anti-proton candidates which I think is miss-leading. For example, one does not see any trace of anti-protons in the low ToF plot.
If you still want to show the dE/dx plot, I would suggest add the cut of TOF and re-plot it;

I added TOF cut and redrew the plot.

> 2) page 7 - Fig. 5:  As one can see that it is not always the case that the size parameters of pion- are larger than that of pion+. For R_out, the kT dependences for both pion- and pion+ are almost identical. However, in cases of R_side and R_long, pion- size parameters are always larger than that of pion+. This is also true in Fig.6. Please modify the last sentence in Page 8, first paragraph;

I modified the last sentence in Page 8, first paragraph.

> Question: can UrQMD reproduce the observed differences?

UrQMD can reproduce observed differences between the correlation functions for positive and negative pions by turning on the Coulomb interaction of a pair with the residual charge (of the fireball).

> 3) Line 227: I do not understand the sentence. In case of boost-invariant, what would be the rapidity dependence of the R_out-long?

I rewrote the sentence.

> 4) Last sentence - page 9 - line 242: emission time tau is proportional to \sqrt(R_out^2 - R_side^2). If R_side(pion-) > R_side(pion+), tau(pion-) should be smaller than that of tau(pion+), right?

Thank you for catching this, it was a typo. I corrected the sentence.

> Do we understand this observation?

We do some calculations and hope to have a straightforward answer soon. Currently we think this is due to the different mechanisms of particle production.

____________________
Answers for Hanna:

> I don't understand why you wrote just above the title "Article", I thought it was conference proceedings. Also, the contribution's length and shape fits the article better than the proceedings.. Please comment on this.

This is a conference proceedings. This template format is provided by the conference.
I guess the manuscript type "article" just means that it is not a "communication" or a "review"; and there is a length limit of min. 4000 words, but nevertheless, this is a conference volume, surely not a "full" STAR paper with final data etc. I also cc'ed Mate (one of the conference organizers) to the email, who can confirm that.

> Your font sizes at all figures are very small. Increase fonts or figures, please. Make all fonts on the plots at least at the font sizes from your text.

Done.

> Section 2.1. You put p_T,1 and p_T,2 in bold font, while other vectors? are not indicated like this. Please make them consistent.

Done.

> Line 114: fxtMult replace with math mode (or italic). The same in the description of Fig. 1.

Done.

> Figure 2: dE/dx in math mode.

Done.

> Line 169: put the reference to the Barlow test.

Done.

Best regards,
Anna

пт, 22 дек. 2023 г. в 14:56, Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>:

Hello Anna,

I don't understand why you wrote just above the title "Article", I thought it was conference proceedings. Also, the contribution's length and shape fits the article better than the proceedings.. Please comment on this.

Your font sizes at all figures are very small. Increase fonts or figures, please. Make all fonts on the plots at least at the font sizes from your text. 

Section 2.1. You put p_T,1 and p_T,2 in bold font, while other vectors? are not indicated like this. Please make them consistent. 

Line 114: fxtMult replace with math mode (or italic). The same in the description of Fig. 1.

Figure 2: dE/dx in math mode.

Line 169: put the reference to the Barlow test.

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 webmaster--- via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> w dniu 15.12.2023, o godz. 22:00:

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

Anna Kraeva (annakraeva555 AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a review,  
please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/66284

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