STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

["Adams, Joseph R." <adams.1940 AT osu.edu>]

Hi Subhash,

 

Thank you very much for the detailed comments. The changes have been implemented and the new version is posted. I have a few responses below.

• I think it's best to keep the b-field upper limit in the text with more context, since it's really a naive extraction and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

• The caption and text refer to the EPD in comparison to the BBC. I think an "EPD" label in Figure 1 would seem strange if the plot is taken out of context, since it'd be like saying "using the STAR TPC and TOF" in the invariant-mass distribution plot. Also, although we're not limited by space, I sort of think it's nice to have the invariant-mass distribution plot wedged in the resolution plot; it's able to show our performance improvements together at a glance, and also doesn't leave huge areas of white space.

• I don't think it's too technical to list off some of the specific checks we performed for systematic mistakes, and I think it becomes clearer to the reader than using something like "run conditions" which is vague.

• We describe the systematic sources and how they are combined in the first paragraph of section II.F.

Please let me know if you have any more questions/comments.

Best,

 

- Joey

---

From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of subhash via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:34 AM
To: Adams, Joseph R. <adams.1940 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu>; STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] PWG review for "Global polarization of Λ and ̄Λ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 and 27 GeV"

 

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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/adams92/Global-polarization-**A-and-**C-hyperons-AuAu-collisions-**BsNN-196-and-27-GeV__;zpvMhM6b4oia!!KGKeukY!3EKRmNgRxgIMl8Dv8WyNMBfgo043nsj17t01u2x8i0nyfggTMd6lom68j04M7bG2cWdQiBvkuLGo82gjeA3AaGKH_v8Cng$
>
>  Any comments on these materials are greatly appreciated!
>
> Best,
>
> - Joey Adams
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l__;!!KGKeukY!3EKRmNgRxgIMl8Dv8WyNMBfgo043nsj17t01u2x8i0nyfggTMd6lom68j04M7bG2cWdQiBvkuLGo82gjeA3AaGI7HAnafA$
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l__;!!KGKeukY!3EKRmNgRxgIMl8Dv8WyNMBfgo043nsj17t01u2x8i0nyfggTMd6lom68j04M7bG2cWdQiBvkuLGo82gjeA3AaGI7HAnafA$