STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Kincses Dániel <kincses AT ttk.elte.hu>]

Dear Hanna,

Thanks for the comments and suggestions!
Here is the updated version:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/CPOD-2024/Beam-energy-dependent-pion-interferometry-Levy-stable-sources-STAR-0

Thanks,
Daniel

---

Feladó: Star-cf-l <star-cf-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov>, meghatalmazó: Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Elküldve: 2024. május 8., szerda 16:23
Címzett: star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Másolatot kap: Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk <hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl>
Tárgy: Re: [Star-cf-l] STAR presentation by Daniel Kincses for CPOD 2024 submitted for review

 

Dear Daniel,

Thanks for submitting your presentation draft on time.

Please find my comments below, in general it is important to add more physics discussion:

Slide 3: please provide definitions of symbols used un the slide.

If the correlation function is defined by the Koonin-Pratt equation, the source function depends on spatial coordinate only.

The same is in the same reference you provide.

Slide 4: Define all symbols from the equation (BTW, here you use just S(r), previously S(x,p), be consistent please).

the last statement about conversion from 3D to 1D that it is not responsible for non-gaussian shape is very strong.

It needs more explanation that just referring the references.  

Moreover, event averaging is mentioned as possible interpretation of the levy component less than 2, while one line below you state opposite. Please, be consistent. 

Slide 5: do you have D(r) distribution for the case excluding decays/rescattering to prove that \alpha parameter is close to 2? It would be also good to show somewhere here how correlation function changes for different \alpha parameters.

Slide 6: speaking about critical behavior, do you have prediction of D(r) when \alpha is 0.5?

Do you have an example of the correlation function for such a case? 

Slide 8/9:

@ 3.2 GeV -> @ \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 3.2 GeV

It would be nice to have some monitors showing how you select your data (tracks, maybe events).

Slide 11:

I don’t think that bullet about low-Q bins is necessary here, the same applies to the bullet about fit range.

Slide 12: at 3.9 GeV -> at \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 3.9 GeV

Slide 13: the statement about no additional affect, except rescattering is too strong, please change to agreement with rescattering considered only is reasonable (you haven’t tested anything else), moreover this statement applies to the \alpha parameter only

Slide 14: mT -> m_T

The third bullet I suggest to change to: both energies compatible

Slide 15:

Do you have S(r) distribution showing core/halo contributions?

mT -> m_T

Slide 17:

It would be good to have to add physics message from these results

Slide 18:

Again, physics conclusions will be valuable, especially in the summary part

Kind regards,

Hanna

PS. I haven’t looked at backup slides yet.

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 webmaster--- via Star-cf-l <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> w dniu 06.05.2024, o godz. 17:12:

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

Daniel Kincses (kincses AT ttk.elte.hu) has submitted a material for a review,  
please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/67691

Deadline: 2024-05-20
---
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