STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Joey, PAs,

Thanks for preparing the materials and addressing comments from PWGC. I 
have gone through it. IMO, everything is in a good shape and ready to 
move to the next step. I have a few comments/suggestions to your nicely 
written paper draft:

line 4: "global spin alignment" --> Nothing wrong english-wise, but 
generally we use "spin alignment" for vector mesons. May be you can 
simply say "aligned along global angular momentum."

line 12: I would suggest to mention BES-II.
Would you like to mention the upper limit value of B-field here in the 
abstract, this is one of the main message of this paper?

Figure-1:
I would suggest mention of EPD somewhere inside this figure.
Also suggest to have a separate figure for lambda (lambda-bar) invariant 
mass distribution, you are not limited by space.

Figure-2:
Panel (a) The new BES-II data points are barely visible. You could 
probably play with colors and symbols and make BES-II prominent in 
foreground, and move rest data points in background.

BTW, do we need these models here? I mean these are already presented in 
your recent 3 GeV paper. Instead I would prefer a model comparison (if 
available) for differential measurements, which is never shown.

"Here and Prev" --> BES-II and BES-I


Minor comments:
line. 195: You mean "< 1.5 cm", right?
line 199: A few lines on how pile up is removed will be useful.
line 204: "detector malfunction" --> I suppose bad run rejections are 
not necessarily due detector malfunction, but can be due to bad beam 
quality for example. I would suggest to rephrase in a positive way that 
good runs are chosen based on performance of detector rather than it's 
malfunction.
line 213: spectator
line 216: measured v1 --> v1 not defined here.
line 222: each EPD wheel --> you could specify wheels at forward and 
backward rapidity.
line 224: "Figure 1 ... collision centrality" --> can be moved before 
the previous line.
line 231: tracks
line 234: p^{+/-} --> I think we generally use p and \bar{p}, right?
line 249: Machine learning and KFP --> How do you use machine learning 
here, I mean any special algorithms?
line 252: I am not sure what is meant by "smallest", is there a limit?
line 258: What do you mean by "both distributions" not clear to me.
line 295: Are there any estimate of systematic uncertainty on R_EP? We 
have faced this question from referee before.
combinatoric background --> Do you mean a mixed event or anything else?
line 300: I suggest to remove "manual reconstruction" and only say, 
".... versus custom set of topological cuts ...."
line 303,306: Psi_{1}
"time of the day, day of the week ..." --> too technical. May be you can 
use "based on run conditions"
Here, mention of Barlow's rejection method would be good.
It is not clear what are the different sources of systematic considered 
and how they are combined. A few lines would be useful.
line 376: No dependence was observed


Thanks and regards,
Subhash

On 2022-07-21 11:34 PM, Adams, Joseph R. via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>  My fellow PAs and I have responded to comments from our preview, and
> have written a paper draft and analysis note on "Global polarization
> of Λ and ̄Λ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 and 27
> GeV". These, and directions to the analysis code, can be found at the
> link below.
>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/adams92/Global-polarization-%CE%9B-and-%CC%84%CE%9B-hyperons-AuAu-collisions-%E2%88%9AsNN-196-and-27-GeV
>
>  Any comments on these materials are greatly appreciated!
>
> Best,
>
> - Joey Adams
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l