STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Yicheng Feng <feng216 AT purdue.edu>]

Hi Subhash,

Thank you very much for your comments and sign-off!

I have implemented your comments and uploaded the new version (SQM2022Proceeding_YichengFeng_v8.pdf) to the same drupal node:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60563

The attachment is a latexdiff file to identify the changes.

For your question, the centrality in this study does not come from StRefMult.

Instead, it cuts on the POI multiplicity to define centrality, and the POI definition is also listed on the Fig.1 caption.

To make it clear, I changed the text "by POI multiplicity" into "by cutting on POI multiplicity" on the Fig.1 caption.

In StRefMult, the centrality is defined by refmult within |\eta|<0.5, which can bring non-physical kinks to \Delta\eta distribution at |\Delta\eta|=0.5, 1.5. 

To solve this issue, we used POI to define the centrality in this study.

Please let me know if you have any further comments.

Sincerely,
Yicheng

---

From: subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2022 10:03 PM
To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Yicheng Feng <feng216 AT purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Yicheng Feng for SQM 2022 submitted for review

 

---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----


Dear Yicheng,

Very nice proceedings. I have the following suggestions for your
consideration:

line 40-43: Please correct the definition of v2^∗.
It sounds like v2^∗ is defined as resolution in line 40.

line 59: We usually say mid-central

Fig. 1 caption: "The centrality range is 20–50%, which is defined by the
POI
multiplicity." --> Is it the default centrality from StRefMult, or with
a different track selections?

line 60-67: NS, AS and RG seem to be in subscript, you can make then
normal.

line 69: I am not sure I understand this line: "taking half of it as
systematic uncertainty,..". Can you rephrase it.

line 80: flows --> flow

line 82: Remove "For safety". Maybe you can rephrase it, conservative
systematic uncertainty.
systematical --> systematic

line 83: by using Eq 5

line 84-85: The full-event and sub-event appears here for the first
time. Probably you can add a reference or add a sentence here.
line 84: How about saying, Following the above procedure for sub-events,
we estimate the equivalent of eqn 7 as ...

line 89: Using the above informations, we obtain an improved background
estimate of isobar ratio ...

I sign off with these addressed.

Thanks and regards,
Subhash


On 2022-08-19 02:51 AM, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Yicheng Feng (feng216 AT purdue.edu) has submitted a material for a
> review,
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60563
>
> Deadline: 2022-08-28
> ---
> 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

Attachment: diff_SQM2022Proceeding_YichengFeng_v6v8.pdf
Description: diff_SQM2022Proceeding_YichengFeng_v6v8.pdf