STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear CWR,

Nice slides. I have a few suggestions for your consideration:

General:
Usually, we have "On behalf of STAR collaboration" for a STAR regular 
stalk. Please replace your group's name with this.

All the physics figures should have collision system with beam energy 
and "STAR Preliminary" labels inside it.

N*Delta_gamma --> N \times Delta_gamma

s#2: 4th bullet: see --> observe

s#2&3: You start with CME, which is well known within our community. But 
for a wider audience at some place you could introduce Chiral Magnetic 
Effect (CME).
you could also add reference to CME papers.

s#5 onwards: I think \xi should not be labelled as "STAR data" and "Our 
preference". IMO, both results are from STAR but using two different 
approaches. Please rephrase it accordingly.

s#6: introduces --> can introduce
Not present --> Not expected
make --> can make
If possible, could you add math expressions correspond to Ave/Sep 
Delta_S Single/Two Norms. To me, it is not evident from the slides what 
they correspond to.

Legend "STAR isobar" --> STAR PRC.XX.xxxx (same suggestion in all 
relevant figures)
because all of them are STAR data from isobar collisions.

Please unify style of references, e.g. 5 and 6 has different styles for 
referencing.

s#7: Can you label what the solid lines mean, inside the figures.
I believe you fit the data and then extrapolate to zero. If yes, can you 
make extrapolation as dashed lines.
For centrality labels, instead of 2.5, can you label them as 0-5% and so 
on ...
If possible, suggest to increase size of axis titles, they are too small 
to be distinguished from axis labels. (same suggestion in all relevant 
figures)

s#8: ESE --> Event Shape Engineering (ESE), then add a reference

s#9: Remove the histogram title in the left figure
Right bullets: q_2, v_2

s#11: Instead of "We propose ...", how about rephrasing:
A modified R-observable (\xi) has been developed for CME search. (then 
you put your reference paper in bracket)

Thanks and regards,
Subhash


On 2022-10-22 08:31 PM, Robertson, Charles William via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Hello Prithwish,
>
>  Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
>  I have updated the slides.
>  Thanks for signing off!
>
>  https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Dnp_Slides_4_0.pdf
>
>  -CW
>
> -------------------------
>
> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of
> Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 9:59 AM
> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Charles Robertson for
> DNP 2022 submitted for review
>
> ---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing
> data ----
>
> Dear CWR,
>   Nice slides. Here are my comments. With these included I sign off
> your
> talk.
>
> slide#1: I guess you are going to change the date of "Oct 5,2022". Add
> "Supported in part by" above the DOE logo.
>
> slide#3: "B field and J aligned" --> "B field and J are aligned"
>
> slide#3: "second order reaction plane" --> "reaction plane"
>
> slide#3: "Phenomenologically" is not the correct choice here. How
> about
> "The azimuthal distribution of produced particles"
>
> slide#4: "normalizing for multiplicit" --> "normalizing with
> multiplicity" (I guess)
>
> slide#5: Above the two equations write something like "Two different
> ways of normalization"
>
> slide#6: In this figure and the others change "Errors are statistical"
> --> "Statistical uncertainties only"
>
> slide#6: \xi is not defined anywhere. Please clearly define it on this
> slide and I suggest you quote the expression on other slides as well.
>
> slide#6: "Average \Delta S" --> "Averaging \Delta S between two
> sub-event", "autocorrelation, This is" --> "autocorrelation that is"
>
> Below the two sub-bullets you have to remind again that in your new
> approach the \Delta S in two sub-events are treated separately.
>
> slide#7: Add a statement, something like "Separate \Delta S and
> different treatments of normalization affect the correlation between
> \Xi
> and N\Delta\gamma". It would also be good to say that it motivates
> your
> ESE analysis.
>
> slide#9: Specify the kinematics for "q_2" estimation.
>
> slide#10: Add a conclusion line here on this slide.
>
> slide#11: I think you should add a general line on the top like "We
> propose modifications to the R-observable developed for CME search"
>
> slide#11: I think "In previous analysis" before "STAR data" would
> help.
>
> slide#11: Add "redefined width of the R-observable" or something like
> that after \Xi.
>
> Best,
> Prithwish
>
> On 2022-10-13 10:48, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> >
> > Charles Robertson (rober558 AT purdue.edu) has submitted a material for
> a
> > review, please have a look:
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/61312
> >
> > Deadline: 2022-10-27
> > ---
> > 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