STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

Dear Egor and all
I send you my comments on your nice proceeding, which would need to be 
submitted almost 
simultaneously just after your talk during the conference, this is almost 
impossible for us to 
review both your talk and proceedings at the same time, it is not your fault 
though… I would 
sign off with the following comments implemented. 
Best regards, ShinIchi

L11-12: It would be better to say why this is important. 
L20-23: It would be better to have some connection from flow to vorticity 
like directed flow and global polarization etc, between the two sentences. 
L25-26: You are missing a word after polarized or remove "by this..." 
L37: ... differential measurements like pT, rapidity and azimuthal 
dependences etc? 
L38: , and this could be achieved by additional measurements using ...
L57: I thought optical fibers are used only for EPD, not for BBC, maybe I’m 
wrong, please make sure. 
Eq.4: I know people uses tan^-1, but I would choose to write atan2(Qy, Qx)...
L66: TPC B-field (parallel to Z) would limit the pT, not the total momemtum...
L67: The number of hits per track automatically limits the eta acceptance, 
but you can do the additional cut on eta, so you can select eta, so it sounds 
odd to say "should". 
L89-90 and Eq.6 : superscript is changing "Bg" and "bckg", I would prefer 
just "bg". "sgn" can be spelled out as "signal". 
Fig.3: Are there better choice of figures? The BG region could have even a 
larger polarization than the signal region especially for Lambda, so the zero 
polarization assumption would not hold here. I hope your systematic error 
would include at least free constant parameter fit for the BG polarization, 
right?
L102 and 107: A weak centrality dependence could possibly be seen, "observed" 
might even be too strong, or? 
L103: would require 
L109: Non-zero sigal with ~2sigma ...

> On Oct 7, 2020, at 21:28, Takafumi Niida <niida AT bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> Dear Jiangyong and all,
> 
> Now this proceedings is under FCV PWG review.
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/icppa-2020/global-hyperon-polarization-auau-collisions-√snn-27-gev-star-experiment
> 
> I checked the conference page and it seems they request to submit 
> proceedings just after the conference (by October 11): 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://indico.particle.mephi.ru/event/35/page/46-conference-proceedings__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!S09R-z82LnJa6M8RC0xP_jWUpFOKPaFoFtFDx9H02oegCbnRY9y3eWiRTqsZQLP8edefjrzZ$
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> Takafumi
> 
> 
>> On Oct 7, 2020, at 9:07 PM, Jiangyong Jia <jiangyong.jia AT stonybrook.edu> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I confused this as a talk and pressed button by accident, and I did not
>> understand why they need to post proceedings now.
>> 
>> Can we restart the process?
>> 
>> Jiangyong
>> 
>> On 10/7/20 4:31 AM, Takafumi Niida wrote:
>>> Dear FCV and CF conveners,
>>> 
>>> I notice that participants for ICPPA (Egor, Eugenia, Petr) posted their 
>>> proceedings while we went through the talk slides (except Petr). One of 
>>> them (Egor’s one in FCV) came to star-talks but I didn’t see you made any 
>>> comment on it. Just in case you overlooked or mixed with the talk slides, 
>>> I just wanted to ask you to take a look and make comments. It’s also 
>>> possible that I missed the discussion. If so could you send me the link 
>>> to the email thread?
>>> 
>>> Egor’s proceedings:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/icppa-2020/global-hyperon-polarization-auau-collisions-√snn-27-gev-star-experiment
>>> 
>>> Eugenia’s proceedings:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/icppa-2020/pion-femtoscopy-pau-and-dau-collisions-sqrtsnn-200-gev-star-experiment-1
>>> 
>>> Petr’s proceedings: Not yet posted
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Takafumi
>>> 
>> 
>