STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Subhash,

Thank you for your suggestions.
I have included them and updated the proceedings.

Please find below link to the updated version:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ICHEP_proceedings_Vipul_v2_0.pdf

Thanks,
With Regards,
Vipul

On 2022-10-17 08:35, subhash wrote:
> Dear Vipul,
>
> Thanks for considering my suggestions. Please find my replies inline.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Subhash
>
> On 2022-10-16 12:58 PM, vipul wrote:
> > Dear Subhash,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
> > I have modified the proceedings. Please find the updated version in
> > the following link:
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ICHEP_proceedings_Vipul_v2.pdf
> >
> > Please find my replies on some of your comments inline below.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > With regards,
> > Vipul
> >
> > On 2022-10-16 07:20, subhash wrote:
> > > Dear Vipul,
> > >
> > > Nice proceedings. I sign off with a few minor suggestions:
> > > In abstract:
> > > 200 GeV, try to void line break.
> > >
> > > The ratio of ⟨v2⟩ between isobar species shows ... deformation in 
> > > these species.
> > >
> > > systematic size dependence --> system size dependence
> > >
> > > line 16: ... RHIC collected data by colliding isobar species Ru+Ru 
> > > and
> > > Zr+Zr at 200 GeV.
> > > Start a new line: It is dedicated to ....
> > >
> > > line 24: could be crucial
> > >
> > > line 33: A total of ∼650 M minimum bias events --> I think we should
> > > mention total samples taken. You could rephrase something like, A
> > > total of ∼650 M minimum bias events out of X.X B are used for this
> > > analysis.
> > -- Could you please provide number of total events for isobars (X.X) 
> > to write.
>
> Please check the isobar blind paper for reference.
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.00596
>
> > > line 34: Either use The multi-strange hadrons or, the above hadron 
> > > species ...
> > >
> > > line 36:  using a track rotation method
> > >
> > > line 38: add ranges of eta-sub selection
> > -- Please suggest a sentence to write.
>
> You must have an eta range for two sub-events. What I ask is to
> mention the ranges and the eta-gap.
>
> > > line 44: particle type dependence (baryon vs meson)
> > >
> > > line 55: About 2% ... is observed, which is consistent with the
> > > expectation from the difference ...
> > >
> > > line 65: It also indicates that the ...
> > > I think we could mention pt range where the coalescence picture is 
> > > valid.
> > -- In this paragraph, I am discussing the NCQ scaling of v2 as a
> > function of KE_T in which the scaling is valid for the measured KE_T
> > range that can be seen by the figure 5. I don't know where I can
> > mention pt range in these sentences, If possible, please suggest a
> > modified sentence.
>
> I am fine with current wordings.
>
>
> > > line 83: These measurements could shed light ...
> > >
> > > I think we don't need a dot at the end of each reference. Please
> > > double check with suggested proceedings format.
> > -- I have checked the author manual provided by the Proceedings of
> > Science. It has a dot at the end of each reference.
> >
> > > Thanks and regards,
> > > Subhash
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2022-10-14 07:13 PM, vipul via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > > > Dear Prithwish,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you your comments and suggestions.
> > > > I have updated the proceedings and removed the older version. Please
> > > > find the link to the updated proceedings.
> > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ICHEP_proceedings_Vipul_v1.pdf
> > > >
> > > > I have added following sentence for the v2 ratio between Ru and Zr:
> > > > A $\sim$2\% deviation from unity with a significance of 6.25$\sigma$
> > > > for $\Lambda(\bar{\Lambda})$ and 1.83$\sigma$ for $K_{s}^{0}$ is
> > > > observed,
> > > > consistent with the difference between the nuclear structures of the
> > > > two isobar nuclei.
> > > >
> > > > Fig.4 and 6 has both the error added in quadrature. So I have added
> > > > following sentence:
> > > > The error bars represent statistical and systematic uncertainties
> > > > added in quadrature.
> > > >
> > > > Fig.5 has both the systematic and statistical errors shown 
> > > > separately.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > With Regards,
> > > > Vipul
> > > >
> > > > On 2022-10-14 03:21, Prithwish Tribedy wrote:
> > > > > Dear Vipul,
> > > > >  Here are my comments on your nice proceedings. With these
> > > > > incorporated, I sign off.
> > > > >
> > > > > Abstract:
> > > > > "indicating a difference" --> "that is consistent with the 
> > > > > difference"
> > > > >
> > > > > "when compared" --> "when comparing" or say "...between isobar and
> > > > > ..(other) systems"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 4: "the key observable" --> "one of the key observables"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 6: "Anisotropic flow is usually refers to" --> "Such an
> > > > > observable measures"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 12: "re-scattering" --> "rescatterings"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 14: "during" --> "in"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 16: "data of" --> "data in collisions of isobars"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 18: "called the" --> "driven by a phenomenon called the"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 18: "The two isobars" --> "It was realized that the two 
> > > > > isobars"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 20: "importantly measurement" --> "importantly, measurements"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 24: You are saying "in heavy-ion collisions" should you 
> > > > > instead
> > > > > say "in isobar collisions"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 26: "respect the event" --> "respect to the event"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 30: "and properties of" --> "and the properties of"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 32: "proceeding" --> "proceedings"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 41: "shows pT" --> "shows the pT"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 44: "which suggest the formation of the" --> "which suggests 
> > > > > the
> > > > > formation of a"
> > > > > I think this point about "QGP medium in isobar" is redundant.
> > > > >
> > > > > line 48: Add "v2(pT) of" after "show" & revise the sentence
> > > > >
> > > > > line 55: It is not clear what you mean by "2% within statistical
> > > > > uncertainties". Are you saying "2% deviation that statistically
> > > > > significant". Or, maybe you quote the significance of the deviation 
> > > > > to
> > > > > make things clear. Something like "about 6 sigma for "\Lambdas" but
> > > > > less than 2 sigma for K_s0". Please make this clear.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fig.4 and below: Somewhere you have to mention that you're showing
> > > > > statistical uncertainties only.
> > > > >
> > > > > line 56: "which might be effect of different deformation 
> > > > > parameters"
> > > > > --> Maybe rephrase it like "consistent with the difference between 
> > > > > the
> > > > > nuclear structures of the two isobar nuclei".
> > > > >
> > > > > line 61: "remove effect of" --> "remove the effect of"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 64: Define NCQ
> > > > >
> > > > > line 65: "indicate" --> "indicates"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 65: "dominate" --> "dominant"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 66: Remove "process"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 76: "and three" --> "and in three"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 78: "hydrodynamics" --> "hydrodynamic"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 80: "dominate" --> "dominant"
> > > > >
> > > > > line 84: "nuclear density for the medium produced" --> Not clear 
> > > > > what
> > > > > you mean. Maybe say something like "collision geometry on 
> > > > > anisotropic
> > > > > particle production".
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Prithwish
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2022-10-10 11:46, vipul via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > > > > > Dear Conveners,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please find below link to the ICHEP-2022 proceedings.
> > > > > > Please give your comments and suggestions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > With Regards,
> > > > > > Vipul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2022-10-10 21:03, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > > > > > > Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vipul Bairathi (vipul.bairathi AT gmail.com) has submitted a 
> > > > > > > material for a
> > > > > > > review, please have a look:
> > > > > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61281
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > 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