STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[傅川 <fuchuan AT impcas.ac.cn>]

Dear Hanna,

                  Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Please find our response below:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Responses-to-Hanna-pp-pL-pXi-CFs_v2.pdf

This document include:

1st round comments: black text

2st round comment: black bold text

Responses: blue text

Thanks and best regards,

Chuan for the PAs

-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk" <hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl>
发送时间:2024-04-18 20:16:37 (星期四)
收件人: "傅川" <fuchuan AT impcas.ac.cn>
抄送: "star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
主题: Re: Reply to comments on p-p/pL/pXi CF analysis from July 2023.

Dear Chuan and All,

Thank you for your responses.

Please find my comments below:

I will concentrate on Analysis notes later; the comments below should be taken to improve the presentation for the PWGC preview.

I) p-p correlations:

1. Please include a discussion of the systematic uncertainties in the presentation file.

Regarding the figure (p-p 1) from the PDF file:

Are there all systematic uncertainties that you include?

Are they the same for other rapidity intervals?

Where is purity accounted for?

Where is splitting included?

2. Ok, just mention the estimation of splitting in systematics as well (for the 40-60% centrality, it may matter).

3. Add purity as a function of k* to your presentation.

When you correct on purity, do you take the averaged value, or do you apply this correction bib-by-bin?

For systematics, you may consider +/-5%. For example, just 1% will not be visible.

4. To understand better how systematics and statistics contribute to the error bars, can you try to separate them? For example, you may simulate how the uncertainties change if you increase your statistics 10 times.

5. Is the fitting range included in systematics?

 

 6. Such comparison should be included in the PWGC presentation as proof. 

7. Ok, I understand, but for our own knowledge, we should have such a figure.

II) p-\Lambda

1. How do you estimate less than 2% of protons decayed from \Lambda contribute?

2. How do fake \Lambda candidates from sidebands on m_{inv} are included in the measurement? 

 3. Ok, include this information to the presentation.

4, please add these numbers with an explanation. These must be related to the total yields. Please explain. Having the feed-down correlation of the order of 2% in the case of p-p and 30% in the case of p-\La is not intuitive. Consider all possible sources of particles that finally end up as the particles of your interest.

5. Ok

6. Here comes with the same comment as for the p-p case. We need to understand how systematics and statistics contribute to your final results. For example, you may simulate how the uncertainties change if you increase your statistics 10 times.

7. ok, add th=o the presentation.

III) p-\Xi

 1. Ok

 2. You mention that you use UrQMD to get feed-down correction. However, UrQMD does not include weak decays. Do you use any afterburner?

 3. Please add this discussion to the presentation (purity, resolution smearing, feed-down correction)

 4. No parameter extraction is planned.

 

Kind regards,

Hanna

Prof. Hanna Zbroszczyk, PhD, DSc, Eng.

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 傅川 <fuchuan AT impcas.ac.cn> w dniu 01.04.2024, o godz. 06:27:

Dear Hanna,

              Thank you very much for your comments on p-p/pL/pXi CF analysis from July 2023.

              Please find our reply below:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Responses-to-Hanna-pp-pL-pXi-CFs.pdf

Please let us know if you have other comments/suggestions.

Best regards

Chuan for the PAs