STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Ashik,

I am fine with your proceedings with a few additional suggestions:
line 14: Parton-Hadron String Dynamics (PHSD) model with EM-field 
calculations.
line 111: Vr < 2 --> |Vr| < 2
line 128: remove "using standard V0 topology cuts"
line 240: larger v1 slope

Thanks and regards,
Subhash

On 2022-01-22 11:41 AM, ASHIK IKBAL via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear Subhash,
>
> First of all, sorry for my late reply. Somehow I had issues getting
> the emails from this group and therefore missed your email. Prithwish
> helped me to find this email. Thanks to him.
>
> Thanks for your nice set of comments. I have addressed them in the
> next version:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/proc_icnfp21_ashik_2.pdf
>
> Here are my answers to your questions:
> line 31: Do you mean scattering in the hadronic phase?
>
> A. Here, I meant hadronic scattering cross-section of multi-strange
> particles (omega, cascade) is low.
> line 127: phi is a strong decay. How do you use V0 cuts for phi
> reconstruction?
>
> A. Phi-meson is reconstructed in K+K- channel using standard
> (conventional) method (invariant mass technique) - pairing the K+ and
> K- in each event. And the cuts used are the standard topological cuts.
> The same method has been used before in STAR (Phys. Rev. Lett. 120,
> 062301 (2018)).
> Q. What is the dominant source of syst uncertainty of Omega+ at
> y=0.1, which is relatively large compared to other data points?
>
> A. The dominant source of syst uncertainty of Omega+ aty=0.1 is kaon
> mass^2 cut variation. We noticed this before and looked here -- found
> nothing suspicious.
> Q.Figure 4: Right and bottom panel, you may consider changing the
> Y-axisrange, so data trends are clearly visible with errors and you
> may scale the
> AMPT
> A. I have kept the y-scale for the right and bottom panel the same as
> the left panel. This is because the left panel is for an identical
> quark case where we expect minimum deviation from zero. Whereas the
> right and bottom panel are the non-identical quark cases and here we
> expect more deviation from zero. So, I thought if I zoom these two
> plots then the comparison would not be at the same scale.
> 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?
> A. Actually we got help from PHSD authors to get the calculations with
> EMF. The model has a huge computation cost and is very much time
> consuming. They did not provide us calculations w/o EMF. So, we don't
> know the expected trend of w/o EMF.
> 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.
> A. Yes! This is observed for Omega- at 27 GeV. For 200 GeV, the
> measurements have huge uncertainties. So apparently it is difficult to
> conclude at 200 GeV.
>
> Thanks,
> Ashik
>
> --
>
> Ashik Ikbal
>
> Research Associate
> Kent State University
> Department Of Physics
>
> Kent, OH 44242, USA
>
> Contact no.s: +1 631-504-7647 (USA)
>
>                       +91 8250216234 (India)
>
> Alternate e-mails: asheikh2 AT kent.edu
>                              ashik AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov
>                              ashik.ikbal.sheikh AT cern.ch
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l