star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG
List archive
[Star-cf-l] Fwd: Paper ready for PWG review: Non-identical particle femtoscopy measurements in the STAR Beam Energy Scan program
- From: Paweł Szymański <pawszy91 AT gmail.com>
- To: STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
- Subject: [Star-cf-l] Fwd: Paper ready for PWG review: Non-identical particle femtoscopy measurements in the STAR Beam Energy Scan program
- Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 09:22:15 +0200
Dear All,
Sorry, I answered the email by selecting "reply" and I skipped the CF group. Here is my answer:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Od: Paweł Szymański <pawszy91 AT gmail.com>
Date: śr., 8 maj 2024 o 11:25
Subject: Re: [Star-cf-l] Paper ready for PWG review: Non-identical particle femtoscopy measurements in the STAR Beam Energy Scan program
To: Nu Xu <nxu AT lbl.gov>
Od: Paweł Szymański <pawszy91 AT gmail.com>
Date: śr., 8 maj 2024 o 11:25
Subject: Re: [Star-cf-l] Paper ready for PWG review: Non-identical particle femtoscopy measurements in the STAR Beam Energy Scan program
To: Nu Xu <nxu AT lbl.gov>
Dear Nu and All,
1) 2) 3) changed.
4) Both statements are changed to suggested. In this analysis, we only have source parameters of pion-proton and kaon-proton pairs for central collisions at 39 GeV. In this case, I prefer to avoid drawing such a conclusion, as we do not have results for lower energies.
5) changed.
6) I added labels above the groups of points related to the pair.
7) That is true. Also, the analyzed variable should be clearly indicated in the previous sentence. Both sentences are corrected.
8) Removed.
9) We can see in Figure 21 that the Kp source size is smaller than for other pairs.
10) True, I used the strange wording here. This sentence should indicate the difference in emission points for all (pions, kaons, and protons) types of particles. The sentence is changed.
11) Added, but I don't know if it is added in the right place.
Best regards,
Paweł
I updated the paper, and the new version is available at the same link (draft v1).
1) 2) 3) changed.
4) Both statements are changed to suggested. In this analysis, we only have source parameters of pion-proton and kaon-proton pairs for central collisions at 39 GeV. In this case, I prefer to avoid drawing such a conclusion, as we do not have results for lower energies.
5) changed.
6) I added labels above the groups of points related to the pair.
7) That is true. Also, the analyzed variable should be clearly indicated in the previous sentence. Both sentences are corrected.
8) Removed.
9) We can see in Figure 21 that the Kp source size is smaller than for other pairs.
10) True, I used the strange wording here. This sentence should indicate the difference in emission points for all (pions, kaons, and protons) types of particles. The sentence is changed.
11) Added, but I don't know if it is added in the right place.
Best regards,
Paweł
pt., 29 mar 2024 o 23:07 Nu Xu <nxu AT lbl.gov> napisał(a):
Hi Paweł and All,
I went through the draft and below are my comments/suggestions for this manuscript. I also made comments on the pdf file which is stored in the Google drive:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XT4vOHskzYn7n0KQgL77Cs82BYTmW2wv/view?usp=drive_link
Please update the paper and we should have another round of discussions within the PWG before request GPC.
Best regards,
Nu
1) Fig.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22 x-axis label is too close to the x-axis numbers. Move away for about 2mm;
2) Fig. 13 and 14: Needs x-axis label “Collision Centrality”;
3) Fig. 24 and 25 need x-axis label “k* [GeV/c]”;
4) Page 1 – Abstract: (i) 4th sentence: I am not sure that I understand the sentence ‘Source sizes exhibit consistency across different sign combinations,’ What do we mean ‘consistency’ here? How about “Source size results of like-sign, both positive and negative pairs and unlike sign pairs are consistently show a similar collision energy and centrality dependence”?; (ii) Last sentence: I suggest change to something like: “The sizes of pi-K sources increase with increasing centrality and collision energy implying strong collective expansion in such collisions.” Now the question is: Is this statement only apply to pi-K pairs? Why not K-p or pi-p?
5) Line 441: I suggest change the session title to something like “Results of Correlation and Discussions”;
6) Page 11 – Fig. 21 and 22: Need legends for different pairs in the figure. A bit confusion now;
7) Page 13 – line 577: Not clear which variables were checked for pi-K, pi-p and K-p pairs;
8) Page 13 – line 583: remove the sentence;
9) Page 13 – line 594: No data was shown to support the statement;
10) Page 13 – line 598: Unclear what does it mean;
11) Page 13 – line 608: add at end: “… for source R and asymmetry parameters of the pi-K pairs”
> On Mar 24, 2024, at 9:13 AM, Paweł Szymański via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear Conveners and All,
> Our paper, "Non-identical particle femtoscopy measurements in the STAR Beam Energy Scan program", is ready for PWG review.
>
> PAs: Diana Pawłowska-Szymańska, Sebastian Siejka, Paweł Szymański, Daniel Wielanek, Hanna Zbroszczyk
>
> Paper website: Drupal paper proposal
> Paper draft: paper_draft.pdf
> Analysis note: analysis_note.pdf
> The analysis code is attached to the paper website.
>
> We look forward to your comments and suggestions regarding the analysis and publication.
>
> Best regards,
> Paweł (on behalf of 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] Fwd: Paper ready for PWG review: Non-identical particle femtoscopy measurements in the STAR Beam Energy Scan program, Paweł Szymański, 05/09/2024
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.