star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG

List archive

Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC

From: Hanna Zbroszczyk <hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl>
To: "star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov" <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:14:56 +0100

Dear Chuan,

I put here your responses, it is much easier to answer:

I have couple of questions before we move forward, they should be addressed in the paper:

Thank you very much for your constructive and useful suggestions and comments, which will solid and improve our analysis.

We provide the detailed explaination for your concerns, and hope that can resolve your concerns and continue to move forward.

The data points and the documents are same as the previous version.

Please find our responses for you item by item according to your comments below:

1. Could you please provide me with the link to the website where all the following documents are uploaded: the paper draft, supplemental material, analysis note, and responses to PWGC?

Yes. We include these documents in the paper website, and please find it.

—> I don’t see any link to the paper website there. Please provide it directly. That field is missing in your PDF document.

2. The paper should include more detailed discussions regarding the proton-cascade parameter (FSI). You mentioned that d0 is fixed to 5.95 fm (please provide a reference), and you list f0 as 0.53 +/- 1.21 fm, but Figure 3 does not represent this system. Additionally, I don’ t see a clear justification for presenting Figures 3 and 4b separately. Since PRL has strict length limitations, combining these into one comprehensive figure could free up space for further discussion.

Thank you for your suggestions and comments. pXi:

Please refer to Line 256, where d0 is fixed to 5.95 fm. The reference is [34]: Phys.Rev.C 105 (2022) 1, 014915

For f0 and d0 calculations, see Ref.[34] TABLE III:

f0 = (1.25 + 0.47×3)/4 = 0.66 fm

d0 = (3.7 + 6.7×3)/4 = 5.95 fm

—>Thank you for the clarification. For the reader, it is important to have these numbers readily available within the paper, rather than needing to browse through other references. While a reference is certainly necessary, it should primarily serve to provide a more detailed discussion.

Please include these numbers directly in the paper and also add the figure comparing the data and theory for the scattering parameters of SI.

Fig. 4( b) is not included in Fig. 3 because Fig. 3
emphasizing centrality and rapidity dependence. In
more on strange quark dependence. This is discussed in the paper on Lines 259–279. So pXi d0 is only shown in Fig.4(b).

Figures 3 and 4b:

Fig. 3 shows the f0-d0 contours from different collision centrality and rapidity windows, it indicates that the FSI parameters are independent of the collision centrality and rapidity windows, and provide an clear desciption about our method for parameter extraction. Basically we show the extracted source-size and FSI parameters in the Fig.4 after Fig.3.

Fig. 4b is most impotant results in our paper, and we would like to keep current figure format in our paper.

—> I still believe you could present all these results in a single figure to streamline the discussion and save time for relevant points. All you need to do is add the p-\Xi results to Figure 3.

Additionally, Figure 4 (a and b) is very small, with fonts that are too small and hard to read. By merging Figure 3 and Figure 4b, you can remove Figure 4b altogether while still effectively conveying the key message of your paper.

3. What is the source size from the proton-cascade? This critical aspect seems to be missing from the paper and should be addressed. Possible correlations between source and interaction parameters should be discussed as well.

Thank you for you suggestions and comments.

The source size of pXi from the LL fit is 2.6 ± 0.99 (stat+syst) fm, see analysis note Page 69, Figure 95. Due to the large uncertainty (primarily from statistical limitations), we decided not to discuss the source size of pXi in this paper.

—> This is a question that a reviewer might raise, and I don't think it is appropriate to publish only a selective piece of the information.

Despite the large error bars on the extracted fit parameters, d0, of pXi, we believe it is still valuable to include them. This is the first time scattering parameters for pXi have been derived in heavy-ion collisions.

—> Yes, and that’s why you should address both the SI parameters and the source sizes in your discussion. Have you checked the correlation between them for p-\Xi? How can you be sure that your SI parameters would remain unchanged if the source size were measured with greater precision? This should be proven as well, please check.

When performing the LL fit, both the source size f0 and interaction parameters f0 are treated as free parameters. These parameters are correlated, as shown

focuses contrast,

on pLd and pp,

Fig. 4( b)

focuses

in the r0-f0 contour in the analysis note (Page 69, Figure 95). The uncertainty in f0 incorporates the uncertainty in f0, ensuring that the correlation is properly accounted for. Similar correlations have been observed in the pp and pLambda systems.

Furthermore, analysis across different centrality and rapidity bins for pp and pLambda shows that while the source size r0 varies, the scattering parameters remain consistent. This consistency provides confidence in the stability of the extracted scattering parameters, even in the presence of varying source sizes.

4. Furthermore, following the most recent discussions from WPCF in Toulouse, none of the analyses seem to discuss the impact of the third-body effect on the measured correlation function. Given the energy domain of this study, such effects are expected to play a role. Have you evaluated their influence?

Thank you for you suggestions and comments.

We compere the extracted f0 and d0 for 0-10% and 40-60% centralities, in principle they will show some difference if the third-body effect is obvious in CF measurements, since this effect will distort the measured CF more for more central collisions. we found they are consistent well within uncertainty, indicates the third-body effect possibly is small for parameter extraction.

We compared the extracted f0 and d0 for measured CF (portential + phase-space + third-body effect? ) and the UrQMD calculation ( portential + phase-space) , they are consistent well within uncertainty, indicates the third-body effect possibly is small for parameter extraction for pp/pLam/pXi pairs.

if it is not obvious for those heavier particles, currently it is hard to estimate this effects for me with higher precition considering it's complexity (the charge of residual nucleus is not point charge and is not a constant with the emission of particles).

We tried to find a general method to consider this effects, in the previous publication about femtoscopy measurement, however I failed.

—> This should be discussed in details during CF PWG meeting. I am interested in outcomes of this check. Even, if it is model dependent, you should not neglect its importance. We need to know estimation of the effect.

5. Which FSI parameters were used for calculating UrQMD correlation functions? What about proton-cascade from UrQMD?

For UrQMD+CARB, we used the potential. References for all pp, pLambda, and pXi pairs have been cited in the paper on Line 173.

The FSI parameters is not input parameters, the FSI is described by the potential for pp, pLam and pXi pairs, in UrQMD+CARB simulation.

As shown in the below figures:

Left: the f0 and d0 used in LL calculation is extracted from the potential in CRAB, the source is the same and two spin state are both considerd. It means, in pLambda case, the effective range expansion used in LL model can discribe pLambda potential very well.

Right: In pp case(right plot), CRAB and LL are also consistent well, and we think it has negligible effect on \Chi2 calculation and f0-d0 contours when we do fitting.

—> Here, you compare only p-\La. Which source size did you use in that comparison? I would expect to see differences between LL and CRAB for smaller sources. From your analysis, the source size for p-\La is slightly above 2 fm, which is still considered a small source.

How can you be sure you would observe similar consistency between p-\Xi results from LL and CRAB? This depends on the potential implemented in CRAB for the p-\Xi system. Furthermore, for small sources - where precision in source size measurements for the p-\Xi system is particularly challenging - these differences could be even more pronounced.

When using the UrQMD model and implementing femtoscopic correlations, you should apply the same formalism as you use for the experimental data. This consideration is crucial for all systems: pp, p\La, p\Xi.

I hope it helps,

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 ChuanFu <fuchuan AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn> w dniu 29.11.2024, o godz. 11:14:

Dear Hanna,
Thank you very much for your constructive and helpful suggestions and comments.
Sorry to reply to you so late, since we take some time to do some discusstions and checks.
and ensure our replies is persuasive.
After discussion with PAs, we prepare the following response for you item by item according to your comments，
and please find it below:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Responses_ForPWGReview.pdf

We very thank you again that your comments solid and improve our analysis.
We hope can get your feedback asap and we can decide our next plan,
considering this analysis is too much old and the student will graduated soon.

we hope that our response can resolve your concerns, then we can continue to request GPC format.
Please find our GPC proposal below:
PWG representive: Hanna Zbroszczyk hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl
Chair: ShinIchi Esumi esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp
member at Large: Anju Bhasin   anju.bhasin AT cern.ch
code QA: Vinh Luong lbavinh AT gmail.com
English QA: Jamie Dunlop dunlop AT bnl.gov>
PA representive: Chuan Fu fuchuan AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn

Please let us know asap if you have further comments/suggestions.
Thank you and best regards,
Chuan, Zhi, Yingjie for the PAs

------------------ Original ------------------
From: "Star-cf"<star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;
Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2024 01:08 AM
To: "Star-cf"<star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;
Subject: Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC

Dear Chuan,

I have couple of questions before we move forward, they should be addressed in the paper:

1. Could you please provide me with the link to the website where all the following documents are uploaded: the paper draft, supplemental material, analysis note, and responses to PWGC?
2. The paper should include more detailed discussions regarding the proton-cascade parameter (FSI). You mentioned that dd0 is fixed to 5.95 fm (please provide a reference), and you list f0 as 0.53 +/- 1.21 fm, but Figure 3 does not represent this system. Additionally, I don’t see a clear justification for presenting Figures 3 and 4b separately. Since PRL has strict length limitations, combining these into one comprehensive figure could free up space for further discussion.
3. What is the source size from the proton-cascade? This critical aspect seems to be missing from the paper and should be addressed. Possible correlations between source and interaction parameters should be discussed as well.
4. Furthermore, following the most recent discussions from WPCF in Toulouse, none of the analyses seem to discuss the impact of the third-body effect on the measured correlation function. Given the energy domain of this study, such effects are expected to play a role. Have you evaluated their influence?
5. Which FSI parameters were used for calculating UrQMD correlation functions? What about proton-cascade from UrQMD?

Thanks,
Hanna

prof. dr hab. inż. Hanna Zbroszczyk
E-mail: hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl
Tel: +48 22 234 5851 (biuro)

Adres:
Poltechnika Warszawska
Wydział Fizyki
Zakład Fizyki Jądrowej
ul. Koszykowa 75
Biuro: 117b (via 115)
00-662 Warszawa

Wiadomość napisana przez 傅川 <fuchuan AT impcas.ac.cn> w dniu 15.10.2024, o godz. 15:36:

Dear Hanna,
       We would request GPC about the paper
"Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC"
Please kindly find the following document:
1) Paper draft:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/3GeV_pp_pL_pXi_CF_PaperDraft_v1.pdf
2) Supplemental materials:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Supplemental_materials_v1.pdf
3) Analysis note:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Analysis_note_3GeV_pp_pL_pXi_CF_v1.pdf
4) Response to PWGC preview:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PWGC-response_0.pdf

Please let us know if you have any comments and suggestions.

Best and regards,
Chuan for the PAs

> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: 傅川 <fuchuan AT impcas.ac.cn>
> 发送时间: 2024-10-01 23:11:01 (星期二)
> 收件人: star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> 抄送: "Hanna Paulina Zbroszczyk" <hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl>, nxu <nxu AT lbl.gov>
> 主题: Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC
>
> Dear Convenors and All,
>
>          The following documents are ready for PWG review and please find them below:
> Paper website:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/fuchuan/Baryon-Baryon-CF-3GeV-0
>
> 1) Paper draft:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/3GeV_pp_pL_pXi_CF_PaperDraft_v1.pdf
> 2) Supplemental materials:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Supplemental_materials_v1.pdf
> 3) Analysis note:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Analysis_note_3GeV_pp_pL_pXi_CF_v1.pdf
> 4) Response to PWGC preview:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PWGC-response_0.pdf
>
> Your comments/suggestions are helpful for us and,
> we would appreciate if you could take a look at those documents.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Chuan, Zhi and Yingjie for the PAs
>
> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人:"Sooraj Radhakrishnan" <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
> 发送时间:2024-07-23 02:40:31 (星期二)
> 收件人: "STAR Papers Discussion List" <starpapers-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "STAR Correlations and Fluctuations PWG" <star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> 抄送:
> 主题: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC
>
> Date: 07/19/2024
>
> Participants: Chuan Fu, Ke Mi. Yingjie Zhou, Youquan Qi,Zhi, Qin, Jae Nam, Hanna Zbroszczyk,Prithwish Tribedy, Subhash Singha, Isaac Mooney, Nihar Sahoo,Yi Yang, Shuai Yang, Yue Hang Leung, ShinIchi Esumi, Sooraj Radhakrishnan
>
> Title: Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC
> PAs: X. Dong, C. Fu, X.F. Luo, K. Mi, Z. Qin, Y.Q. Qi, S.S. Shi, Y.P. Wang, N. Xu, Z.G. Xiao, Y.J. Zhou
> Target journal: PRL
> Proposal page: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/fuchuan/Baryon-CF-paper-3-GeV
> Presentation: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Measurements_pp_pLam_pXi_CF_PWGC_2024_v1.pdf
>
> The PWGC panel previewed a paper proposal from CFPWG. The panel found that the analysis is mature and results are important and interesting, and the paper should move forward. The journal choice was also found to be appropriate. The following points were discussed.
>
> Q: On S.8, what are the correlation functions used for the evaluation of feed down contributions?
> A: For p - Lambda correlations, these are using p - Sigma correlations from model calculations (S.26)
>
> Q: Is there a model uncertainty in evaluation of feed-down contribution? Do you use more than one model?
> A: For p+p, the contribution is very small. For p - Lambda we use different models. For the feed-down fractions we use values from thermal model and UrQMD
>
> Q: What are the feed-down fraction for protons and Lambda at 3 GeV?
> A: This is shown on S.26, for Lambda the feedodown fraction is 30%
>
> Q: For p - Lambda, the UrQMD has much different radius than in data. But in Fig.2, the correlation function from UrQMD is very close to that in data. Why is this so?
> A: There is difference between L-L fit and UrQMD in Fig.2. The data - UrQMD difference can also be seen on S.29
>
> Q: On S.8, what are a and b for the merged pair rejection?
> A: These are cuts in Delta phi and Delta ets. The values of a and b are different for different analyses. More details can be found in S.19. These are varied for systematic uncertainty evaluation
>
> Q: On S.12, do you have the chi2 for these fits?
> A: The chi2/ndf are shown on S.23. It is around 3.
> Q: Isn't this large?
> A: The contour of variation corresponds to the contour plots in Fig.3. The quoted fit parameters have the minimum chi2/ndf
>
> Q: On Fig.1, the acceptances are slightly different for p-p and p-Lambda, and also different for p-Cascade. Does this make an impact on extracted values?
> A: For p-p, we change the minimum pT cut from 0.4 GeV/c to 0.5 GeV/c. The difference in correlation functions are very small. For p-Cascade, we have to use the acceptance because of limited statistics
>
> Q: The momentum smearing correction is listed as largest contributor to systematic uncertainties. How is this evaluated?
> A: We smear the data with the momentum resolution from embedding and evaluate the impact. This is discussed on S.20
>
> Q: Are there any constraints on f0 or d0 when doing L-L fits?
> A: No, there are no constraints?
> Q: Are the extracted f0 and d0 for p-Lambda consistent with that shown in QM preliminary?
> A: Yes, the values and errors are consistent
>
> C: The extracted f0, d0 values, particularly for p-p are very precise. This can be highlighted in the abstract
> A: Yes, we will consider
>
> Q: We have measurements of other nucleon-nucleon and nucleon-hyperon correlations. Why are they not discussed in this paper?
> A: These measurements are not published and its not clear which analyses will be published first
>
> Q: In Fig.4, is the one labelled PRC from measurement?
> A: Yes, this is from low energy scattering measurement
> C: In that case, would be good to label clearly
> A: Yes, will change
>
> Q: Does ALICE have measurements of p-p, p-Lambda?
> A: No. These are the first measurements
>
> Q: In the abstract it is mentioned that the measurements can constrain the interactions in neutron stars, but the densities are very different. How do you address this? Should this be in the abstract?
> A: The measurements can still offer constraints to model calculations. We think it is good to have in the abstract
>
> Q: Can we compare to previous measurements of proton - Omega and Lambda - Lambda correlations in Figure 4?
> A: We want to focus on the high precision measurements from this analysis on Fig.4
>
> --
> Sooraj Radhakrishnan
> Research Scientist,
> Department of Physics
> Kent State University
> Kent, OH 44242
>
> Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate
> Nuclear Science Division
> Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> Berkeley, CA 94720
> Ph: 510-495-2473
> Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
>
>
> </star-cf-l AT lists.bnl.gov></starpapers-l AT lists.bnl.gov></skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
</nxu AT lbl.gov></hanna.zbroszczyk AT pw.edu.pl></fuchuan AT impcas.ac.cn>

Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Hanna Zbroszczyk, 11/17/2024
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, ChuanFu, 11/29/2024
  - Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, EsumiShinIchi, 11/29/2024
    - Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, ChuanFu, 11/29/2024
  - Re: [[Star-cf-l] ] Notes for PWGC preview (07/19/2024): Measurements of Proton−Proton, Proton−Λ and Proton−Ξ- Correlation Functions in sqrt{sNN} = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Hanna Zbroszczyk, 11/29/2024