STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[LikeLiu <likeliu AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>]

Hi Subhash and Zhenyu,

Many thanks for your suggestions! 
Yes, we agree with your points, considering the ambiguities in the model, 

we would focus on the data and refrain drawing further conclusions from the model calculations. 

The paper draft has been revised, and the figures updated according to your suggestions!

Paper link: 

star.bnl.gov

Kindly let us know if you have further comments.

Thanks,

Li-Ke for PAs

On Aug 5, 2024, at 07:48, zhchen <zhchen AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Li-Ke, all,

The materials look good to me.
I have the same concern as Subhash that line196-199 is claiming JAM can't reproduce 3.9 and 4.5 GeV results because lack of partonic interactions, but it is not shown it could reproduce hadronic interactions for lower energies, thus it looks like JAM is not working anywhere therefore it could be just a dummy comparison.
I sign-off once this is addressed.

Cheers,
Zhenyu

在 2024-08-02 11:40，subhash 写道：

Dear Li-Ke, PAs,
Thanks for your reminder. I have read the materials, they are in good
shape. I sign-off once the following comments are addressed:
Paper draft summary: I am of the opinion that at these low energies
several effects are inter-twined, like shadowing (making v2 negative),
transported quarks etc. The breaking of scaling can be due to multiple
factors, can we use it as evidence for onset as mentioned in the
summary. Especially, from Fig. 4, the p/K is close to 1 in data 3.9 &
4.5 GeV, and you argued that JAM can't reproduce this  because JAM
don't have partonic interactions. But the JAM underestimate both the
ratios for all energies we measured by several sigmas. So I don't get
the argument you are making, especially line 189-onwards. Do you have
these ratios from other models, like SMASH, AMPT-string melting?
Minor suggestions:
Fig. 1: You can probably mention the box inside figures are the used
acceptance in the caption.
Fig. 2: please remove "STAR preliminary" level. Can you try making JAM
and corresponding beam energy data in similar color. I was bit
struggling comparing between data/model in this busy plot.
Thanks and regards,
Subhash
On 2024-08-01 05:57 PM, LikeLiu wrote:

Dear Conveners and All,
This is a kind reminder about our analysis for GPC formation request.
Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated,
thanks!
Best regards,
Li-Ke for PAs

On Jul 18, 2024, at 16:01, LikeLiu <likeliu AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>
wrote:
Dear FCV Conveners,
We would like to request GPC formation for our paper "Onset of
Partonic Collectivity in Heavy-Ion Collisions at RHIC”.
The PWGC comment reply, Paper Draft, and Analysis Note are available
for review.
Kindly let us know if you have any comments, so that we can move
forward.
Many thanks!
Best regards,
Li-Ke for PAs

On Jul 3, 2024, at 16:00, likeliu via Star-fcv-l
<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear Convenors and All,
After the PWGC preview, we have prepared the replies to the PWGC
comments,
also the Paper Draft and Analysis Note are available for review,
linked below.
PWGC comment reply:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FXTv2_PWGC_Preview_Comments_Reply.pdf

Paper Draft:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Paper_draft_ver1.pdf
Analysis Note:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AnalysisNote_ver1_1.pdf

Kindly let us know if you have any comments.
thanks and best regards,
Li-Ke for PAs
------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Barbara Trzeciak via
Starpapers-l"<starpapers-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;
Date:  Mon, Apr 1, 2024 11:23 PM
To:  "starpapers-l"<starpapers-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;
Cc:  "Barbara Trzeciak"<barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>;
Subject:  [Starpapers-l] Notes for PWGC preview (03/29/2024):
Onset of Partonic Collectivity in Heavy-Ion Collisions at RHIC
Date: 03/29/2024
Participants: Li-Ke Liu, Subhash SIngha, Nu Xu, Shusu Shi, Guoping
Wang, Isaac Mooney, Jae D. Nam, Shuai Yang, Ting Lin, Xiaoxuan
Chu, Xing Wu, Yi Yang, Yue Hang Leung, Zhenyu Chen, Zuowen Liu,
Sooraj Radhakrishnan, Barbara Trzeciak
Title: Onset of Partonic Collectivity in Heavy-Ion Collisions at
RHIC
PAs: Xin Dong, Li-Ke Liu, Zuowen Liu, Sooraj Radhakrishnan, Shusu
Shi, Guoping Wang, Xing Wu, Nu Xu
Target journal: Phys. Rev. Lett.
Proposal page:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/lliu/Paper-proposal-PID-v2-FXT-3p2-4p5-GeV

Presentation:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FXTv2_PWGC_review.pdf

The PWGC panel previewed a paper proposal from FCV PWG. The panel
found that the analysis is mature and results are important and
interesting, and the paper should move forward. The journal choice
was also found to be appropriate. The following points were
discussed.
Q: Systematic uncertainties on m2 lies on the edge of statistical
uncertainties. And is excluded by the Barlow test. Can you try
more variations of the m2 cut ?
A: Yes, we will try.
Q: In the abstract you say there is NCQ scaling at LHC, while it
does not hold so well.
A: Yes, we do not need to mention this in the abstract.
Q: How long do you expect to wait for appropriate embedding ?
A: Yes, we need to wait for embedding for the given energy, it is
important for the final results.
Q: How big of an impact do you expect when you use new embedding ?
A: We do not expect big change, but it needs to be checked.
Q: Which production do you use ? There was a bug found, it needs
to be redone with the new dataset.
A: Yes, we will.
Q: When you integrate over pT is this the whole measured range ?
A: Yes, it corresponds to ~same mT range.
Q: Fig. 4 you plot the two ratios, why these two ?
A: Kaon is produced and the mass is in between. It is to make the
difference more clear.
Q: Do you have a proton/pi ratio ? Does it follow the trend of
proton/K.
A: It follows the trends toward 1.
Q: Where would the 7.7 GeV data point be on the ratio ? Is it 1 ?
A: We have not checked this ratio yet.
Q: For momentum < 1, the right plots show purity is 1.
A: For momentum > 0.8 we use both TPC and TOF. This is a mistake
in the plot.
Q: You have conclusions about SMASH but no SMASH on figures.
A: We will move SMASH to the discussion part.
Q: Fig. 14: have you tried other baryon/meson ratios ?
A:  E.g. for strange particles in this bin stat. unc. is large.
But we will have a look at some of them.
Q: You can use range instead of a fixed value.
A: We will check this.
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l