STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Helen Caines <helen.caines AT yale.edu>]

Dear Rishabh,

 Nice slides and data. A couple more comments for you to consider

General: If the plots are approved please remove the red “requesting preliminary” from several of the slides. IF they aren’t yet approved, what is the back-up plan given SQM is next week?

Whenever we show the BES-II data  I would suggest adding if it is FXT of COL. While for many energies its clear to use which is which, its not necessarily to those outside of STAR plus we do have some energies from both COL and FXT so its a good idea for us to start labeling all the data from the beginning to try to avoid confusions later on. 

I also suggest adding just that its BES-II data rather than the year.

Slide 5: You comment the EP resolution is better for the BES-II. I suggest adding why, and if the improvement is as expected/better/worse

Given you call out the EPD on slide4, be prepared to answer why you didn’t use it in your analysis.

Slide 6

Given this is BES-II data and you have talked about the extended rapidity range a few slides earlier, please add what rapidity range the data is for. If you did not use the larger range, why not?

Slide 7: If you want to leave on the fit parameters, please make bigger so they are legible. Have we really pinned the mass and width down to 100 keV with that binning and statistics?

Slide 8: Please add the rapidity range - I think this is important to note on all BES-II data as they come out. Given we plan to expand the range compared to BES-I data there will likely be plus of the same quantities over different y ranges, so we should get used to labeling this clearly.

Slide 9: Please try to make the font size and placement the same for each energy.

There is lots of white space on this slide. Maybe you could add if the centrality dependence is as expected? How does it compare to, for example, the proton or pion dependencies?

The 19 GeV appears stronger, is this true? If so is it expected?

Slide 10: From the plots its hard to see, is it really as good as 10%

I suggest to modify the bullet to say all light nuclei at all energies measured.

Slide 11: While this is a nice measurement, with the current errors its a bit of a stretch to say it follows the mass number scaling isn’t it?

Slide 12: It seems that all nuclei/particles containing a strange quark are on the low side. Maybe this is worth drawing the audiences attention to?

Helen

***********************

Yale University
Physics Dept. - Wright Lab.
PO Box 208120
New Haven, CT 06520
203-432-5831
***********************
she/her/hers
"Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass.
It's about learning how to dance in the rain." - Vivian Greene

On Jun 8, 2022, at 6:15 AM, rishabh via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Subhash,

Thank you for your quick response. I have implemented these further suggestions from you.
Here is the link to the updated slides: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59779

Thanks again.
Best regards,
Rishabh

On 2022-06-08 15:29, subhash via Star-fcv-l wrote:

Dear Rishabh,
Thanks for incorporating my suggestions. I am fine with your slides.
Two minor comments:
slide#4: √sNN (GeV)
slide#9: deuterons show
Thanks and regards,
Subhash
On 2022-06-08 05:30 PM, Rishabh Sharma wrote:

Dear Subhash,
Thank you so much for your helpful comments.
slide#4: In the datasets, you can probably indicate BES-I and BES-II.
- Implemented
slide#5: Can you add comment on the improvement in EP resolution in
BES-II compared to BES-I? - Implemented (For a better comparison
between the BES I and BES II I am showing only 19.6 GeV resolution. I
will put the rest in the backup)
slide#6: Are these results from 0-80% or finer centrality bins? I
would suggest to use 0-80%. Moreover, if you can replace these 14.6
GeV results with 19.6 GeV ones where the bad runs and centrality is
finalized, it would be better. But I would leave it up to you. -
Implemented (I have replaced the plots with 19.6 GeV 0-80% results)
slide#7: Can you add collision system, beam energy etc details inside
these figures? - (I have written it on top of the figure. Are you
suggesting putting the details inside the figure?)
slide#8: Can you indicate the improvement in precision in BES-II
relative to BES-I?
Implemented
slide#9: Remove 14.6 0-30% and 30-80% plots. Mention centrality
dependent study is underway.
Implemented
slide#10: Can you use specific range of deviation, 10-20%?
Implemented
slide#13: Indicate how much Deviation of light nuclei v2 scaling is
observed.
Implemented
Please find the updated slides here:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59779
Please let me know if you have further suggestions or comments.
Thanks and regards,
Rishabh
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 4:04 PM subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:

Dear Rishabh,
Nice slides.
It was recommended by the management to release only 0-80%
centrality
results for 14.6 GeV. Please remove the corresponding v2 results in
0-30% and 30-80%.
slide#4: In the datasets, you can probably indicate BES-I and
BES-II.
slide#5: Can you add comment on the improvement in EP resolution in
BES-II compared to BES-I?
slide#6: Are these results from 0-80% or finer centrality bins? I
would
suggest to use 0-80%. Moreover, if you can replace these 14.6 GeV
results with 19.6 GeV ones where the bad runs and centrality is
finalized, it would be better. But I would leave it up to you.
slide#7: Can you add collision system, beam energy etc details
inside
these figures?
slide#8: Can you indicate the improvement in precision in BES-II
relative to BES-I?
slide#9: Remove 14.6 0-30% and 30-80% plots. Mention centrality
dependent study is underway.
slide#10: Can you use specific range of deviation, 10-20%?
slide#13: Indicate how much Deviation of light nuclei v2 scaling is
observed.
Thanks and regards,
Subhash
On 2022-05-31 11:42 AM, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:

Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
Rishabh Sharma (rishabhsharma AT students.iisertirupati.ac.in) has
submitted a
material for a review, please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59779
---
If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l

_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l

_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l