STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Hanna Zbroszczyk <hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl>]

Dear Yu,

Thank you for sharing your slides.  The presentation looks very nice and is well-organized.

Here I list my comments:

General comment: as your talk has 15+ slides, I recommend adding an outline to help your listeners navigate through your presentation.

S2: you mention that cross-over transition occurs for \mu_B/T < 2, whereas recent calculations suggest that the critical point is disfavored  for \mu_B/T < 3, indicating that the cross-over is expected up to that range. 

Given this, I suggest modifying the sentence to reflect that the location of the cross-over is constrained to \mu_B/T < 3, and to replacing the figure with more up-to-date version. 

One option is to directly use the figure from this paper (Figure 1): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.09210. It shows that the critical point is aligned with  \mu_B/T = 3, which you can present as one of predictions.

Another possibility is to follow some recent predictions. I recommend using the QCD phase diagram from this paper (Figure 1): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.01981, which clearly illustrates several predictions placing the critical point at \mu_B/T <3

Whenever you present any prediction, please include a reference (e.g., here you predict the T_{CEP}). By the way, the temperature value mentioned is inconsistent with the location of the critical point in the figure.

S4: Ensure that you use the same QCD phase diagram as in Slide 2.

It will also be a good idea to mention (especially as the top figure shows BES-I data as well) that full BES range covers even lower \mu_B. Depending on the collision centrality from \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV you get the value of \mu_B around 15-20 MeV (lower for more peripheral collisions).

When mentioning particulate detector subsystems: iTPC, ETOF, EPD, I suggest pointing them on the figure of the STAR detector (you might also consider  updating or replacing the figure if needed) 

S5: are sensitive -> are suggested as a signature of (since we don’t have an evidence to that..)

S6: Different centrality definitions include not only different \eta but include / exclude protons to avoid self-correlations.

Please make it clear. 

S7: Any bullet to summarize the physics / message to take from here will be helpful.

The figure does’t refer to any work, please put CPOD’24.

S8: ~20GeV -> \sqrt{s_{NN}  = } ~20 GeV (and add a space between 20 and GeV)

models/70 -> models / 70 (add a space twice)

1.3-2\sigma -> 1.3. - 2\sigma (add space twice)

Refer to CPOD’24 conference.

S11: add  [1] and [2] references

Define all symbols used in the formulas and 

S12: No clear -> no clear

Use consistently symbols of particles instead their names: e.g. pions -> \pi, Kaon -> K (last 2 bullets)

Define m_T (it’s not obvious how transverse mass is considered in case of pair)

Slide 14:

The preliminary p-p correlation functions are no longer shown because, after switching from global to primary tracks, the correlation function changed. Please remove the figure on the left.

S15: Preliminary p-d and d-d results with FSI parameters were never shown by STAR. Please show the same results as got preliminary labels for QM’22: https://indico.cern.ch/event/895086/contributions/4724875/attachments/2423137/4147792/QM2022_KeMi.pdf

S14, 16, 17: for p-\Lambda and d-\Lambda also make sure you show the same results as for QM’23

 

I hope that is helpful,

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 Hu, Yu <yuhu AT bnl.gov> w dniu 21.08.2024, o godz. 04:14:

Dear Nu,

Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. Please find the newer version from the link below:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ICNFP2024_20240828_STAR_YuHu_CF_v3.pdf

For comments (3), instead of R_inv(pion) > R_inv(Kaon), I used R_G(pion) > R_G(Kaon); 

For comments (4), there are some differences in the scattering length between low-E scattering and the LL formula, but the numbers are comparable. But I removed that statement to avoid confusion. 

For comments (5), I was planning to say the p-d can provide insights on 3-body interactions, but since the first bullet I wanted to state the model with 2-body described our data well, I removed that statement to avoid complications.

Thank you.

Best,

Yu

---

From: Nu Xu <nxu AT lbl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 20:16
To: Hu, Yu <yuhu AT bnl.gov>
Cc: nxu AT lbl.gov <nxu AT lbl.gov>; STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; Zbroszczyk Hanna <hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl>
Subject: Re: STAR presentation by Yu Hu for ICNFP 2024 submitted for review

 

Hi Yu,

I have problem with the working group page. 
Here are my comments/suggestions about the presentation:
1) page 6: for the 3.0 GeV data, we took about 260M event in 2018;
2) page 8: title => "Cumulant of Net-Protons";
3) page 13: (i) 1st bullet: at the beginning, add "within 3.0 < energy< 3.9GeV," ... ; (ii) add an additional bullet: "R_inv(pion) > R_inv(Kaon) at all collisions energies" ; (iii) last bullet: change to "Different <mT> dependence for pions and Kaons";
4) page 15: (i) the definition of the scattering length is in consistent; (ii) the value of the scattering length for pp pairs (7.2 fm) is much larger than that of pL pairs (2.3fm)!!! ;
5) page 16: I am not sure what do we mean by the 2nd bullet;
6) page 19 - right column: reverse the order of the 1st and 2nd bullet

That is all for now.
Nu

> On Aug 20, 2024, at 3:35 PM, Hu, Yu <yuhu AT bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> Dear Hanna, Nu, and All,
> 
> I somehow didn't see the email go out, please find my slides for the ICNFP talk.
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/ICNFP-2024/Overview-STAR-Measurements-Correlations-and-Fluctuations-0
> 
> Comments and suggestions are welcome!
> Best,
> Yu