STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

["Guoping" <gpwang AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>]

Dear Richard,

Firstly, thank you for your detailed comments very much! And Followed your suggestions, I have updated the version:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/gp_QM2023_poster2.pdf

Secondly, some answers:

Event plane reconstruction: I added the explanation of EPD-AB at here.

Results v1: 1.Due to the errors are small, so the results of models look like lines. 2. I moved the "dv1/dy is positive in ...." to explain the third plots. 

Summary: there are some mistakes in my previous summary. I update now, do you think it would be better ?

Sorry, please, I didn't understand "- leave a small space after the “Rapidity dependence dv1/dy of pi+- …." and "Then a small space and the Outlook".

Thanks again and Best regards,

Guoping

 

 

------------------ Original ------------------

From:  "Richard Seto"<seto AT ucr.edu>;

Date:  Tue, Aug 29, 2023 12:23 PM

To:  "王国平"<gpwang AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>;

Cc:  "star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov"<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;

Subject:  Re: Guoping Wang - poster comments

 

Hi Gouping

Poster Comments below

Abstract
——————
Good

Motivation.
————-
Good

Experimental Setup
—————————-
I would kill the words “Modest Rates”
   
  For the EPD
      Larger -> Good. 
  (Larger than what?)

Be a bit more clear about the PID selection
I think you mean the |nsigma-shift| < 3 from the TPC dE/dx and -0.1<m^2<0.15 in the TOF, where you require P< 3GeV.
  You can shorten it e.g.
|nsigma-shift|<3 (TPC). Etc

Event plane reconstruction/Event Plane resolution
————————————
It would be nice if the legend was bigger and the lines in the plot were wider.
For the Resolution, make the points bigger.
You need to label the Left Plot. - I think it is R_11 (or R_1)

Some where you have to indicate what EPD-AB is.


Results
————
For the plots, “pi^+” and “pi^-“ can be larger. Somethings you have to bold those.

v1
Why do you have what looks like a systematic error band around the model lines. I don’t see them in the plot. (Or are they there and I just cannot see them??)
Why do you say for all pt windows? How can I see that from the plot which is only rapidity and one pt window (0.2<pt<1.6)
Label the legend for the model “Jam2” for clarity. 
Somewhere you need to indicate that RQMD/RMF refers to the mean field.

“The JAM2 mean field mode reproduce” -> “The JAM2 mean field mode reproduces”

Also you still have it labeled “requesting” STAR Preliminary. Fix that.

V2
I would also move the v2 pt plot to the left and the text on the right, just like the others. That way it is clear which plot each block of text refers to. (I was confused at first)

- fist bullet “increase” -> “increases”
- 2nd bullet - Can you explain this statement in a few words?
- 3rd bullet - “describe” -> “describes”

Summary
The statement “JAM2 mean field mode well reproduce the data.”
  -> Is this true? It looks like the the pt dependence, the cascade mode works better (at least that is what you said.
I would just write it all out. For example you might do the following

- leave a small space after the “Rapidity dependence dv1/dy of pi+- ….”

Then two statements:
-JAM2 using a mean field describes the rapidity dependece of v1 and the pt dependence of the v1 slope better than the cascade mode.
- However the pt dependence of v2 is better described by JAM in the cascade mode.

Then a small space and the Outlook.

Best Regards

-rich