STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Li-Ke,

Thanks for addressing my suggestions. I am fine with your slides with 
following comments.

slide#7: Right figure, can you add the data and system information there 
too.
slide#10: Can you mention typical Psi3 event plane resolution values 
that we use here and any improvement relative to BES-I?
slide#11: left figure: BES-I (year 2010) --> BES-I (year 2011)
slide#12: Is it that the deviation from NCQ scaling getting worse at 
14.6 than 19.6. I understand the centrality range is different here. But 
I am wondering if you compare for example 0-80% 19.6 and 14.6 how is the 
deviation in these two cases.
slide#13: uB --> Mu_{B}

Thanks and regards,
Subhash


On 2022-06-09 03:31 PM, LikeLiu wrote:
> Dear Subhash,
>
> Thanks a lot for your suggestions!  I have modified the slides
> accordingly.
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/SQM2022_Like_ver3.pdf
>
> > slide#4: "v2 can provide effective degree of freedom" --> Do you
> > mean partonic/hadronic degrees of freedom?
> > are less affected by  ...
> > Can you also add some references for small cross-section, earlier
> > freeze-outs etc.
>  Yes, this sentence was changed to “v2 is sensitive to constituent
> interactions and degree of freedom”, and some references for small
> cross-section added.
>
> > slide#5: Can you be specific what do you mean by "Better track
> > quality”?
>  Here I mean iTPC will improve the momentum resolution and extend
> track detection to low p_T, I will say orally in the talk.
>
> > slide#6 and slide#8, 9, 10
>  The font size inside plot are increased, and "BES-||” label added.
>
> > slide#8,Can you point out any improvement in signal/background
> > improvement in BES-II relative to BES-I?
>  I don’t find the invariant mass dis. for 19.6 GeV, but for 7.7 GeV.
> Comparison with 7.7 GeV, the signal/background and significance for
> \Lambda, \Xi, \Omega improved a lot.
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.03732.pdf [1]
>
> > slide #10"Event-by-event fluctuation dominant" --> Do you mean
> > originated dominant from event-by-event fluctuations?
>
> This sentence was changed to “Event-by-event fluctuation is the
> dominant source”.
>
> > slide#11; Can you add any statement on improvement in precision of
> > NCQ scaling in BES-II relative to BES-I?
>  In BES-I, we don’t have precision to say the NCQ scaling for
> anti-particles better than particles, In BES-II 19.6 GeV, NCQ scaling
> of v2 holds within 10% for anti-particles, 20% for particles, benefit
> from enhanced statistics. I have add this statement in this slide.
>
> > slide#12: "NCQ scaling of v2 observed" --> Seems not true for 0-80%.
> > Suggest to rephrase the sentence.
>  The sentence was changed to “NCQ scaling holds at 20% level”, the
> event statistic used and the value of the refmult cut are added on the
> plot, as Prithwish suggested in the SQM preliminary approval email.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Li-Ke
>
> > 2022年6月7日 下午6:13，subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > 写道：
> >
> > Dear Li-Ke,
> >
> > Nice slides. I have few suggestions for your consideration.
> >
> > slide#4: "v2 can provide effective degree of freedom" --> Do you
> > mean partonic/hadronic degrees of freedom?
> > are less affected by  ...
> > Can you also add some references for small cross-section, earlier
> > freeze-outs etc.
> >
> > slide#5: Can you be specific what do you mean by "Better track
> > quality"?
> >
> > slide#6: Can you increase font size inside figures, they are small.
> >
> > slide#7: Do you want to point out any improvement in PID performance
> > in BES-II compared to BES-I?
> >
> > slide#8: In general legends are small to read the details, can you
> > enlarge them?
> > Can you add either 2019 data or BES-II inside these figures?
> > Can you point out any improvement in signal/background improvement
> > in BES-II relative to BES-I?
> >
> > slide#9&10: Add either 2019 data or BES-II inside these figures
> > "Event-by-event fluctuation dominant" --> Do you mean originated
> > dominant from event-by-event fluctuations?
> >
> > slide#11; Can you add any statement on improvement in precision of
> > NCQ scaling in BES-II relative to BES-I?
> >
> > slide#12: "NCQ scaling of v2 observed" --> Seems not true for 0-80%.
> > Suggest to rephrase the sentence.
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Subhash
> >
> > On 2022-05-30 03:56 PM, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> >
> > > Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > > Like Liu (likeliu AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn) has submitted a material for
> > > a review,
> > > please have a look:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59768
> > > ---
> > > 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
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.03732.pdf__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!BX6nH_JvgYi2BQmWNh2W_4ujtBQyr2b27XGkRFHRSSJKUrLyYY1vQFeb9go8VLkOZWAP0CME-HgVmT0K_RLCiHwATQZv1TY$