STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

[Rutik Manikandhan <manikandhan.rutik AT gmail.com>]

Hello Nu,

Thank you for your responses, I have made the changes and uploaded them : https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FAIRNess2024_ver1.pdf

1)S3-last bullet: ==> "CBM experiment at FAIR extends ...";

Done
2) S10-1st bullet: remove 'consistent with model expectation with a Critical 
Point' as there is no calculations yet;

Done
3) S13: I am not sure that I understand the title of the slide 'Centrality 
resolution ...'? I suggest remove the slide as the next one is the same;

Done
4) S14 - point 2: weak effect of the centrality resolution is on for "C4/C2 
from centrality collisions". Please make it clear;

Done
5) S15: this shows the BES-I data, not needed;

Done
6) S23-27: add reference for these slides;

Done
7) S28 - 2nd bullet: I am not sure we can claim the 'qualitative agreements 
with factorial cumulants for critical signatures'. Remove it;

Done
8) S32-35: Those discussions seem not used in later discussions, why do we 
need them?

These slides are used to introduce a baseline for these pT correlations, because the non-monotonicity is claimed

with a baseline which is a constant as a function of energy.
9) S37: (i) based on what we can claim '200 GeV partially thermalized'?  What 
do we mean by 'partially thermalization'? (ii) Given the large differences 
between data and UrQMD results in the RHIC energy region, how can we conclude 
'UrQMD underpredicts data consistently at all energies'?

(i) The fact that BL cannot reproduce the data, implies partial thermalization

     I added some more info on S28 to introduce partial thermalization

(ii) Changed to "UrQMD deviates from Data"

10) S39: I am not sure what is the point of discussion for this slide;

     This slide takes us back to the discussion on baseline, there's a theoretical prediction for the baseline,

     and at FXT energies we return to the baseline.

11) S40: what is the conclusion of the slide?

     We are showing that the correlator has long range rapidity correlations, and these imply they are correlations

      from early stages of the collision, this was not done for the collider energies, so it's interesting to see its implications,

      how the early correlations would differ from hadronic interaction/partonic interactions.

12) S42-last bullet: What do we want to say with this bullet?

       What we require are further baseline calculations, Boltzmann-Langevin like calculations for these energies,
       so we are asking for inputs from the theory community

Best,

Rutik Manikandhan

PhD Candidate, Experimental Nuclear High Energy Group

Physics Dept.

University of Houston

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:34 AM <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov> wrote:

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

Nu Xu ( nxu AT lbl.gov ) has commented on a material originally submitted by 
Rutik Manikandhan ( manikandhan.rutik AT gmail.com ) at
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/FAIRness-2024/Recent-Highlights-STAR-Experiment-0

Comment:
Hi Rutik, below are my suggestions/questions about your talk 
FAIRNess2024_ver0.pdf:
1)S3-last bullet: ==> "CBM experiment at FAIR extends ...";
2) S10-1st bullet: remove 'consistent with model expectation with a Critical 
Point' as there is no calculations yet;
3) S13: I am not sure that I understand the title of the slide 'Centrality 
resolution ...'? I suggest remove the slide as the next one is the same;
4) S14 - point 2: weak effect of the centrality resolution is on for "C4/C2 
from centrality collisions". Please make it clear;
5) S15: this shows the BES-I data, not needed;
6) S23-27: add reference for these slides;
7) S28 - 2nd bullet: I am not sure we can claim the 'qualitative agreements 
with factorial cumulants for critical signatures'. Remove it;
8) S32-35: Those discussions seem not used in later discussions, why do we 
need them?
9) S37: (i) based on what we can claim '200 GeV partially thermalized'?  What 
do we mean by 'partially thermalization'? (ii) Given the large differences 
between dat aand UrQMD result in the RHIC enregy region, how can we conclude 
'UrQMD underpredicts data consistently at all energies'?
10) S39: I am not sure what is the point of discussion for this slide;
11) S40: what is the conclusion of the slide?
12) S42-last bullet: What do we want to say with this bullet?

That is all for now.
Regards,
Nu


---
If you have any problems with the review process, please contact 
webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov