STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[webmaster AT star.bnl.gov]

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

Subhash Singha ( connectsubhash AT gmail.com ) has commented on a material  
originally submitted by Ashik Ikbal Sheikh ( ashikhep AT gmail.com ) at
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/ICNFP-2021/STAR-results-strangeness-and-electric-charge-dependent-splitting-rapidity-3

Comment:
Hi Ashik,
Nice and detailed proceedings. I have a few suggestions and questions below.  
I sign off once these are addressed.
line 14: remove "model" after AMPT
line 24: Nuclear transport and hydrodynamics model
line 31: Do you mean scattering in the hadronic phase?
line 42: I would rephrase it: As the charged spectators fly away, ...
line 67: Pb+Pb collisions
line 67-69: Note that stronger D v1 splitting compared to charged particles  
only observed at LHC, while at RHIC D v1 splitting is consistent with zero.  
 
You can rephrase this sentence to make it clear. 
line 105: Add a reference to ZDC-SMD
line 110 & 111: |Vr|
line 116:Â using information from TPC and TOF detectors.
line 117 & 118: |Nsigma|
line 121: As prescribed by Barlow.
line 124: Usually we use KFParticle package, instead of KF package.
line 125: Add a reference to PDG
line 127: phi is a strong decay. How do you use V0 cuts for phi  
reconstruction?
Figure 3:Â What is the dominant source of syst uncertainty of Omega+ at  
y=0.1, which is relatively large compared to other data points?
Figure 4: Right and bottom panel, you may consider changing the Y-axis range, 
 
so data trends are clearly visible with errors and you may scale the AMPT. 
Figure 5: This is not for this proceedings, but I am wondering what is the  
expected trend for PHSD W/O EMF. Is it similar to AMPT?
line 239: Do you mean larger v1-slope for Omega-? Also the hint for larger  
v1-slope is only for 27 GeV, not so apparent for 200 GeV.

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