STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[webmaster AT star.bnl.gov]

Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,

Zhenyu Chen ( zhenyuchen AT sdu.edu.cn ) has commented on a material originally  
submitted by Zuowen Liu ( liuzw AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn ) at
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/Quark-Matter-2023/Anisotropic-Flow-Identified-Particles-Au-Au-Collisions-3-%E2%80%93-196-GeV

Comment:
Dear Zuowen,

Nice slides. Please find few suggestions below:
- General: Text font and color is not consistent for the reference on  
different slides
- Slide3: boundary -> boundaries
- Slide5: I would suggest to re-organize the text, v2 is also sensitive to  
fluctuation, v3 also provides insight on degree of freedom, you could make  
general statements instead of link vn with a single physics message one by  
one
- Slide6: "with low pT cut" -> at low pT
- Slide6: "3GeV: NCQ scaling violation vs. High energy: NCQ scaling" -> NCQ  
scaling violation at lower collision energy
- Slide7: "Reproduced anti-flow of Ks0 at 3.9 GeV" -> Anti-flow observed for  
Ks0 at 3.9 GeV with pT < 0.7 GeV
- Slide7: "within high pT window." -> with pT > 0.7 GeV
- Slide8: Is the reference needed here?
- Slide9&10: I would suggest to swap the order of the two slides, showing  
that adding the spectator effects would produce anti-flow
- Slide12: "v1/v2" -> "v1, v2"
- Slide12: "strength is weaker and weaker" is not scientific description
- Slide12: "Better description....", it is very hard to see where this  
conclusion comes from with the current layout of the slide
- Slide13: "v2/v3" -> "v2,v3"
- Slide13: "qualified the NCQ scaling" -> enable the test of NCQ scaling
- Slide13&14: "partonic interaction dominates", can we say "dominates"? maybe 
 
"play important roles"
- Slide15: The summary now looks more like a theory talk. Please at least  
summarize what results have been presented, then follow by physics messages.

Cheers,
Zhenyu

---
If you have any problems with the review process, please contact  
webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov