STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[niseem <niseem AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear Prithwish and ShinIchi,

Please find the updated abstract at this link,

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Niseem_IS1_21_0.pdf


For your comments,

(1) ShinIchi comments,

1- I thought you would be also focusing various different ways of 
non-flow subtractions, which you do not mention here at all, while you 
do mention about the different ways of centrality definition only for 
UU?
> > There is no different centrality definition I rephrased the sentence 
> > to give a better understanding

2- I would say you might like to focus on the most important 
topics/point that you would like to
present, like energy dependence, system size dependence, centrality 
determination and/or non-flow subtraction etc…
> > Abstract updated

3-some more words on how this measurement would be related to the small 
system vn? where we do not see clear quenching effect at least on RAA...
> > I agree with you, p+Au got removed

(2) Prithwish comments
i- Comments on the abstract :
-using the STAR experiment —> from the STAR experiment
-Au+At at 200 —> Au+Au at 200
-“The measurements scaling features”   sounds a bit ambiguous, pls. be 
specific and revise this sentence.
-constraints for—> constraints on
-upcoming O+O and p+Au runs at RHIC—>anticipated O+O run at RHIC in the 
year 2021
> > All comments are considered


-Do you want to mention p+Au here ? A p+Au run at STAR/RHIC is going to 
take a while, also we already have p+Au data which might create a 
confusion.
> > I agree with you, p+Au got removed

-Along the line of ShinIchi's comments: adding a line on the novel 
subtraction method that you use can strengthen your abstract, however, I 
leave this to you.
> > I agree with you, the sentence has been updated


ii-Comments on analysis and preliminary approval:
1. We find out what would be our policy on promising isobar data in an 
abstract. If PAC’s recommendation on not showing isobar data at any 
conference was specific to CME analysis, this won’t be a problem. But, 
you don't have to worry -- we will clarify this from management before 
the abstract is submitted.

> > Please note that the meeting will be in January and we started the 
> > production I’m hoping to have final results before that. Also, as you 
> > stated these only flow measurements.

2. In your last presentation you mentioned about ongoing 27 GeV analysis 
:
https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/niseem/pwg_2020/High_PT_3.pdf
However, in this abstract you mentioned about 54 GeV. Do you have plans 
to show/include both 27 and 54 GeV ?

> > 27 GeV added to the abstract I’m working on it now.



Thanks,
Niseem