STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Vinh Luong <lbavinh AT gmail.com>]

Dear Hanna and Nu,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Please find the inline replies 
below.

Kind regards,
Vinh

To Hanna:

> Summary: at 3 GeV -> at \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 3 GeV
Done.

> Please extend the part related to the parametrization of the correlation 
> function. Explain why you consider mixed component of two quantities only 
> and what is the physics motivation behind this.
> Make stronger the physics discussion, especially in the case of 
> R^2_{out-long}  and y_{pair} dependence. Why it is important?
I have tried to elaborate more on the R^2_{out-long}, both in the
introduction and results.


To Nu:

> 1) Abstract -  first sentence: replace ‘for the models of heavy ion 
> collisions.’ by “for model calculations.”;
> 2) Introduction: the parameter ‘lambda’ should be defined;
> 3) Results on k_T, collision energy and y_pair-dependences: (i) move the 
> Collision Energy dependence to the left, then y-dependence (middle) and k_t 
> dependence (right);
> (ii) It will be easier for readers if we use the same symbols for pion- and 
> pion+ pairs for all of the three figures;
Done.

> (iii) For the rapidity dependence figure, I can understand y_cm stands for 
> the pion rapidity in center-of-mass frame. I am not sure about ‘y_cm - 
> y_pair’. I would suggest we use “Pion Rapidity y_cm” for this figure;
The quantity plotted here is the pion pair rapidity (not single pion
rapidity) in the collision center-of-mass (CMS) frame. I would use
"y_{pair}^{CMS}" instead.

> (iv) I would also suggest rearrange the figures as: (left) Radii vs. y_cm; 
> (middle) lambda vs. y_cm; (right) R^2_out-long vs. y_cm. Put the y-axis 
> label on the left of each plot;
> 4) Collision Energy Dependence - 1st bullet: I am not sure that we can 
> conclude “Shape of pion source changes from oblate to prolate.”, remove it;
Done.

> 5) k_T Dependence - 2nd bullet: What do we mean by 'due to asymmetric 
> acceptance w.r.t. midrapidity’? Do we mean pion acceptance?
True. The rapidity cut here is -0.5 < y < 0. If we could apply a
symmetric rapidity cut w.r.t. midrapidity in CMS (e.g. -0.5 < y <
0.5), R^2_{out-long} would be zero.

> 6) For the rapidity dependence, why there is a gap in rapidity in the 3.9 
> GeV Au+Au collisions?
We excluded -0.2 < y_pair < 0 rapidity bin at 3.9 GeV because this
rapidity window reaches the edge of the acceptance and this introduces
bias to extracted parameters.

> 7) For uncertainties, do we have both statistical and systematic 
> uncertainties or only the statistical uncertainties? Please make it clear 
> in the captions of result plots;
We have estimated both types of uncertainties. I have added the
caption into the figures.

> 8) Add dashed line in the upper panels of the Two-pion correlation 
> functions figure.
Done.
> > On Jan 16, 2024, at 11:55 PM, Vinh Luong via Star-cf-l 
> > <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Conveners,
> >
> > Could you please kindly have a look at this poster?
> > Thank you very much in advance!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Vinh
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 4:44 PM webmaster--- via Star-cf-l
> > <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> >>
> >> Vinh Luong (lbavinh AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a review, 
> >> please
> >> have a look:
> >> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/66551
> >>
> >> Deadline: 2024-01-29
> >> ---
> >> 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
>