STAR HardProbes PWG

[zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn]

Hi Yi and all,

Thank you for helping us to request the formation of GPC.

For Yi, thank you for your sign off. While I 'm pleasured that I can work with you together again in next stages.

Best,

Shenghui

-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
发送时间:2022-09-21 22:03:05 (星期三)
收件人: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
抄送: "Nihar Sahoo" <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>, "Sooraj Radhakrishnan" <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>, "STAR HardProbes PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "Barbara Trzeciak" <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
主题: Re: Re: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions

Hi Shenghui,

Thanks a lot for the updated version and I am fine with the reply. 

We will request the GPC and I will be the PWG representative of this analysis.

Cheers,

Yi

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 9:40 PM <zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:

Dear convenor,

Thank you for Yi's comments. Please find the updated paper draft and the reply to Yi's comments below.

Paper draft: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AuAu_HFE_paperdraft_v3.pdf

For Yi: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Comments_PWG_Yi_AuAu.pdf

I think it is time to request the formation of GPC because it usually takes a few weeks between sending the request and GPC formation. In this process, if Yi has the further comments, I can fix them. Can you help us to request the formation of GPC? If possible, we would like to request the same GPC as B->e paper because they have signed off the analysis note and finished the code check, which can push our paper to next stage faster.

Best,

Shenghui 

-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
发送时间:2022-09-19 14:37:55 (星期一)
收件人: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
抄送: "Nihar Sahoo" <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>, "Sooraj Radhakrishnan" <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>, "STAR HardProbes PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "Barbara Trzeciak" <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
主题: Re: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions

Hi Shenghui,

Very sorry for the late response. I was confused a bit by myself and got a very last minute travel request... 

Thanks a lot for the nice analysis note and paper draft. I think the analysis process should be "identical" or "very similar" to the other papers. So I don't have any further comments on the note. 

I have only some minor comments/suggestions/questions on the paper draft for your consideration. 

-L8: mid-rapidity --> mid-pseudorapidity  (is it more correct?)

-L12: hot, dense --> hot and dense 

-L65: by STAR and PHENIX experiments --> by the STAR and PHENIX experiments 

-L72: mid-rapidity --> mid-pseudorapidity  (is it more correct?)

-L73: 20-40% and 40-80% --> 20-40%, and 40-80% 

-L83: pseudorapidity (\eta)  --> You already used \eta before, don't need to do it here...

-L94 - L103: This paragraph should move ahead, it reads a bit strange to me that you describe some TPC related cuts before introducing the detector. 

-L114: J/$\Psi$ --> J/$\psi$

-Eq. 3.1: Can you separate this into two lines? 

-L123: rapidity and Nevt --> rapidity, and Nevt 

-Figure 1: An example of ... 

                You mention the boxes are the "systematic uncertainties", but you never mentioned them in the text. (only mentioned them in the Sec. 3.5, L273 - 274). You probably can say the systematic uncertainties will be described in Sec. 3.5. 

                Question: Do you know why the purity for 40 - 80% is worse in high-pT? I would navily think the other way around. 

-L164 -L175: I think it is the same procedure as the other published results, right? If so, I would think we can put references for it.

-L193: rapidity and mN --> rapidity, and mN

-Figure 6: I think these plots are way too busy. You can remove the dashed lines around RAA = 1. The fonts for "STAR, PHENIX... ) "Duke and PHSD" are too small. I would only use "STAR" instead of "STAR 2014" 

Cheers,

Yi

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:11 PM <zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:

Hi Nihar,

Thank you for your reply and sign off. Let's wait for Yi's response.

Best,
Shenghui

> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "Nihar Sahoo" <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> 发送时间: 2022-09-13 20:46:01 (星期二)
> 收件人: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
> 抄送: "Sooraj Radhakrishnan" <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>, "STAR HardProbes PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>, "Barbara Trzeciak" <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
> 主题: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions
>
> Hello Shenghui,
>
> As I have not followed in details from the beginning, I sign off with
> the current paper draft and AN.
> I believe Barabar, Yi, and Sooraj have gone through this analysis in
> detail and commented accordingly.
>
> Once all conveners sign off, we can request for the formation of the
> GPC.
> Please just wait by then and remind again us.
>
> Cheers
> Nihar
>
>
>
> On 2022-09-13 13:00, zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn wrote:
> > Hi Sooraj and all,
> >
> > For Sooraj, thank you for your reply and sign off. I have updated the
> > Fig. 46 in the analysis note.
> > For all, especially Yi and Nihar, if any comments or suggestions,
> > please let me know.
> >
> > Best,
> > Shenghui
> >
> >> -----原始邮件-----
> >> 发件人:"Sooraj Radhakrishnan" <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
> >> 发送时间:2022-09-13 02:59:27 (星期二)
> >> 收件人: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
> >> 抄送: "Carl Gagliardi" <c-gagliardi AT tamu.edu>, "STAR HardProbes
> >> PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>, "Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
> >> 主题: Re: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in
> >> Au+Au collisions
> >>
> >> Hi Shenghui,
> >> Thanks for the responses and the updated drafts
> >>
> >> For Fig 46: I think the version in the response is better.
> >> Otherwise, I dont have further comments and sign off
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> Sooraj
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 7:59 PM <zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> >> Hi Carl, Sooraj and all,
> >>
> >> Thank you for Carl's and Sooraj's nice comments. Please find the
> >> modified paper draft and my reply below.  If any further comments or
> >> suggestions, please let me know.
> >>
> >> Paper draft:
> >>
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/AuAu_HFE_paperdraft_v2.pdf
> >> For Carl:
> >>
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Comments_PWG_Carl_AuAu.pdf
> >> For Sooraj:
> >>
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Comments_PWG_Sooraj_AuAu.pdf
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Shenghui
> >>
> >> -----原始邮件-----
> >> 发件人:"Sooraj Radhakrishnan" <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
> >> 发送时间:2022-07-26 03:39:07 (星期二)
> >> 收件人: "Carl Gagliardi" <c-gagliardi AT tamu.edu>, "STAR HardProbes
> >> PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> >> 抄送: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn, "Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
> >> 主题: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au
> >> collisions
> >>
> >> Hi Shenghui,
> >> Sorry for this delayed set of comments from me. As Barbara said,
> >> since the note was reviewed for the HFT paper I also dont have many
> >> new comments on the analysis note. Please find a couple of questions
> >> though below:
> >>
> >> The RAA results are consistent with Run10 results for all
> >> centralities except 40-80% (Fig 55). The 40-60% centrality results
> >> are systematically higher than 40-80% centrality. How do we
> >> understand the difference, is it within uncertainties? Did you
> >> compare 40-60% for 2014 with 2010 results, are they consistent? Are
> >> the Run10 results published?
> >>
> >> The systematic uncertainty for PHE reconstruction efficiency is
> >> 15-20%. Is 10% of this from the TPC tracking efficiency uncertainty?
> >> Is this uncertainty better known now? Can it be reduced? What are
> >> the other major sources? PHE reconstruction efficiency is much
> >> larger than from other sources, affecting the significance of the
> >> measurement. Why are the Run10 systematic errors much smaller? Is
> >> that because of a significantly better S/B ratio?
> >>
> >> Fig.33, the mass cut uncertainty jumps quite a lot between pT and
> >> centrality bins. Is this from poor statistics? Are the statistical
> >> fluctuations discounted in the systematic uncertainty evaluation?
> >>
> >> The trigger threshold for HT1 is about ~80% of that of HT2, however
> >> this small variation seems to give a much larger uncertainty at
> >> lower pT (for HT1?). This also seems too large for a minor variation
> >> of threshold (the second largest of the sources and comparable to
> >> the PHE efficiency uncertainty at lower pT). Is this variation well
> >> understood? What is causing it?
> >>
> >> Fig 46 is hard to read, do you need the scale factors on the points
> >> for each centrality?
> >>
> >> On Fig 18, are the statistical errors from the fit or the rebinned
> >> errors from the one in Fig 17? If former, how large are the actual
> >> statistical errors?
> >>
> >>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> The paper draft is very nicely written. Please find some comments on
> >> the most recent version (v1) below:
> >>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> L49: 'especially at high pT' is not a good fit here. The low pT
> >> measurements are also important to understand the HQ dynamics and
> >> interactions with the QGP. Or may be rephrase
> >> L72: The HFT b/c-->e paper is referenced here, but only the c and b
> >> contribution separation is pointed to. The HFT paper also has the
> >> HFE results for 0-80%. This should be pointed out and that this
> >> paper provides the results across the different centrality ranges
> >> L96: Remove at high pT
> >> Fig2: red band narrower than black curve? From the figure it is
> >> otherwise
> >> L309: This needs to be phrased better. The lower pT points in
> >> peripheral collisions arent consistent within statistical and
> >> systematic errors
> >> L327: Why chose pT > 5 GeV/c here, instead of 4 GeV/c?
> >> L342: This (except for centrality dependence) was used in the HFT
> >> paper, wasnt?
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> Sooraj
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 2:31 AM Carl Gagliardi via Star-hp-l
> >> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Shenghui—
> >>
> >> A voice from the peanut gallery…
> >>
> >> Having been on the recent GPCs, I finally made a point to read your
> >> current draft AuAu heavy flavor electrons paper.  It looks to be in
> >> very good shape overall.  I focused on physics issues.  I didn’t
> >> pay attention to wording or grammar issues unless they really jumped
> >> out at me.  With that in mind, here are my comments:
> >>
> >> General comment:  This paper would fit very well in PRC.  Not sure
> >> why it looks like you are targeting EPJ.
> >>
> >> --   L100:  “with” -> “at”  (cause this is a wording detail
> >> that many people might read over)
> >>
> >> --   L137:  How does the requirement for a hit in the first three
> >> TPC padrows suppress backgrounds from the beam pipe support
> >> structure?
> >>
> >> --   L145:  I don’t think you mean pi^0 here.
> >>
> >> --   L148:  I’m confused by the units.  0.015 looks like a Delta
> >> phi value, which would be fine.  3 looks like a number of eta strips
> >> cut, which also would be fine.  But they don’t go together.
> >>
> >> --   Fig. 2:  It might be useful to change the vertical scales so
> >> the negative Unlike-Like bins remain on scale.
> >>
> >> --   Sect. 3.3:  Given the previous paper and how standard embedding
> >> is, the half sentence list of embedding efficiency estimates is
> >> probably okay.  But if you don’t at least expand a bit for those
> >> cases where data-driven methods are used, you might well find that
> >> the referee asks that you expand on all the estimates here.
> >>
> >> --   L253-55:  It would be useful to characterize these HDE
> >> subtractions as fractions of the corrected NPE yield.
> >>
> >> --   L263:  I assume that this 3.5% uncertainty is a carry-over from
> >> the pp paper that was based on 2012 data.  However, the uncertainty
> >> was larger for 2013 (+/-5%), and I don’t remember that a separate
> >> calibration was ever performed for 2014.  If not, I don’t see how
> >> we can claim precision better than the previous year, where detailed
> >> calibrations were performed.
> >>
> >> Note:  You shouldn’t need to perform a completely new
> >> estimate for the trigger efficiency.  It should be fine simply to
> >> scale up your existing numbers by 5/3.5 (or whatever is the
> >> “right” number for 2014).
> >>
> >> Mea culpa:  I should have caught this in the “mass
> >> ordering” paper.  Sorry!
> >>
> >> --   Fig. 5:  I’m sorry, but nothing is visible on an 18-decade
> >> log plot.  It would really help to reformat this figure in a way
> >> that permits a vastly expanded vertical scale.
> >>
> >> --   L309-10:  The statement that the STAR and PHENIX results are
> >> consistent is true overall.  But there is clearly a systematic
> >> difference between the 40-80% results with 3.5 < pT < 5 GeV/c.  I
> >> remember that we discussed this a bit in the mass ordering paper
> >> GPC.  But it won’t surprise me a bit if the referee asks about the
> >> difference.  So it might be useful to take one more look now, just
> >> to be sure.
> >>
> >> --   L325:  “date” -> “data”  (I just couldn’t just read
> >> past this particular wording edit.)
> >>
> >> --   L332-33:  You are being very “generous” in your
> >> characterization of the difference between your results and PHSD.
> >>
> >> Nice work!
> >>
> >> Carl
> >>
> >> From: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of
> >> zhang08--- via Star-hp-l
> >> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:29 PM
> >> To: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn; STAR HardProbes PWG
> >> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> >> Cc: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au
> >> collisions
> >>
> >> Dear convener, Are there any comments for the paper draft and
> >> analysis note of our AuAu HFE analysis? I have not gotten any
> >> responses for a lone time.⁠ Best, Shenghui -----原始邮件-----
> >> 发件人:⁠"zhang08--- via Star-hp-l"
> >> <star-hp-l@⁠lists.⁠bnl.⁠gov>
> >>
> >> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> >>
> >> This Message Is From an External Sender
> >>
> >> This message came from outside your organization.
> >>
> >> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> >>
> >> Dear convener,
> >>
> >> Are there any comments for the paper draft and analysis note of our
> >> AuAu HFE analysis? I have not gotten any responses for a lone time.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Shenghui
> >>
> >> -----原始邮件-----
> >> 发件人:"zhang08--- via Star-hp-l" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> >> 发送时间:2022-06-17 09:58:24 (星期五)
> >> 收件人: "Barbara Trzeciak" <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
> >> 抄送: "Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>, "STAR HardProbes PWG"
> >> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> >> 主题: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au
> >> collisions
> >>
> >> Hi Barbara, all,
> >>
> >> Thank you for Barbara's nice comments. Please find the updated
> >> version in the following link.
> >>
> >>
> > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/paper/AuAu_HFE_paperdraft_v1.pdf
> >>
> >> For Barbara, please find my replies to your nice comments in the
> >> following link.
> >>
> >>
> > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/Collaboration/Comments_PWG_Barbara_AuAu.pdf
> >>
> >> Certainly, you can also access thees links by our paper webpage.
> >>
> >>
> > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Shenghui
> >>
> >> -----原始邮件-----
> >> 发件人:"Barbara Trzeciak" <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>
> >> 发送时间:2022-06-15 21:02:10 (星期三)
> >> 收件人: "Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>, "STAR HardProbes PWG"
> >> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> >> 抄送: zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
> >> 主题: Re: [Star-hp-l] Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au
> >> collisions
> >>
> >> Hi Shenghui, PAs,
> >>
> >> Please find my comments to your very nice and clear paper draft
> >> below.
> >>
> >> In general everything looks good to me, and I think the draft is
> >> good to go after the comments are addressed.
> >>
> >> And do you keep JHEP as the target journal ?
> >>
> >> Since the AN was already reviewed and approved for the b->e paper, I
> >> don't have additional comments on it.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Barbara
> >>
> >> L42:  is the negligible ->  is negligible
> >>
> >> L106: Experimetnally -> Experimentally
> >>
> >> L108: I wouldn't list Hadron contamination within these points, just
> >> add afterwards that the sample of electrons is not pure and
> >> contains hadron contamination. Or, change Experimetnally identified
> >> electrons to Experimentally identified electron candidates
> >>
> >> L120: non-photonic electron -> non-photonic electrons
> >>
> >> L129: to suppress -> in order to suppress
> >>
> >> L143-144: I would mention here if you use energy measured within a
> >> BEMC tower or cluster
> >>
> >> Fig. 1 caption: while Boxes represent -> while boxes represent
> >>
> >> Fig. 1: I would split it into two figures, the upper and lower rows
> >> separately.
> >>
> >> Fig. 2 c): it' shard to see the unc. of the fit and differences
> >> between different contributions. If possible, please make the max
> >> value of the y axis smaller - you can e..g. split the legend into
> >> two columns to have more space.
> >>
> >> L197: gamma -> photon
> >>
> >> Sec. 3.3: you don't give much details here. If the idea is that you
> >> refer to the other paper, you should write this explicitly here,
> >> saying that the methods used here are the same (or follow closely)
> >> what was done in other measurements in Ref. [43].
> >>
> >> L260-261:  Uncertainties in simulating the HT trigger threshold (±
> >> 3.5%) as well as the BSMD identification efficiency are also taken
> >> into account -> it's not clear how you estimate these uncertainties.
> >>
> >> Tab. 1: for 40-80% unc. on the electron purity is listed up to 76%.
> >> It's not clear to me which point on the purity plot has such large
> >> uncertainty. Could you please give more details. Also, for the PHE
> >> identification efficiency numbers in the AN are lower than 70%.
> >>
> >> - Results: I know that you discussed the significance of the
> >> difference between the data and PHSD in the replies to PWGC preview.
> >> But I think we can still say that PHSD is systematically below our
> >> central points for pT > 5 GeV/c.
> >>
> >> - It would be good to add Ncoll and Npart values for a given
> >> centrality class
> >>
> >> - Global uncertainties are not discussed, only mentioned in the
> >> figure's caption.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 6:01 AM Yi Yang via Star-hp-l
> >> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Shenghui,
> >>
> >> I will need another 2-3 weeks to finish your note and draft.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Yi
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:29 AM zhang08--- via Star-hp-l
> >> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Do you have any comments or suggestions for our paper draft of
> >> inclusive HFE production?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Shenghui
> >>
> >> -----原始邮件-----
> >> 发件人:zhang08 AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
> >> 发送时间:2022-05-27 15:13:40 (星期五)
> >> 收件人: star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov, Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> >> 抄送:
> >> 主题: Pointer to HFE Paper Proposal Page in Au+Au collisions
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The analysis of inclusive HFE production in 200 GeV Au+Au collisions
> >> are ready for PWG review. Please find analysis note and paper draft
> >> below. The analysis note is same as that for b->e paper, and
> >> reviewed and signed off by PWG and GPC except updating the figure of
> >> RAA vs pT distribution using Duke and PHSD model and adding the RAA
> >> vs Npart distribution shown on page 62 of analysis note. You can
> >> also find our reply for the comments of PWGC preview below.
> >>
> >> Analysis note:
> >>
> > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/note/AuAu_HFE_anaNote_v3.pdf
> >> [1]
> >>
> >> Paper draft:
> >>
> > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/paper/AuAu_HFE_paperdraft_v0.pdf
> >> [2]
> >>
> >> Reply to comments from PWGC preview:
> >>
> > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/Collaboration/Reply_to_Comments_PWGC_Preview.pdf
> >> [3]
> >>
> >> Any comments or suggestions are welcomed.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Shenghui
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Star-hp-l mailing list
> >> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> >> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l [4]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> > [4]_______________________________________________
> > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> >
> > --
> >
> > Sooraj Radhakrishnan
> >
> > Research Scientist,
> > Department of Physics
> >
> > Kent State University
> >  Kent, OH 44243
> >
> > Physicist Postdoctoral AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> > MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> > Berkeley, CA 94720
> > Ph: 510-495-2473 [5]
> >
> > Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
> >
> > --
> >
> > Sooraj Radhakrishnan
> >
> > Research Scientist,
> > Department of Physics
> >
> > Kent State University
> >  Kent, OH 44243
> >
> > Physicist Postdoctoral AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> > Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> > MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> > Berkeley, CA 94720
> > Ph: 510-495-2473 [5]
> >
> > Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1]
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/note/AuAu_HFE_anaNote_v3.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!AgPVEOLGwrWlED6YR5x95VBoHpR0ztaHRRjQxDDq230_rfxvoUtU8o5doCDlNcVVWIag0eZ-i6OIaAt5pLw4v7qZ-xgf$
> > [2]
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/paper/AuAu_HFE_paperdraft_v0.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!AgPVEOLGwrWlED6YR5x95VBoHpR0ztaHRRjQxDDq230_rfxvoUtU8o5doCDlNcVVWIag0eZ-i6OIaAt5pLw4v2EfJqOu$
> > [3]
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/shenghui/web/HFE_production_AuAu/Collaboration/Reply_to_Comments_PWGC_Preview.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!AgPVEOLGwrWlED6YR5x95VBoHpR0ztaHRRjQxDDq230_rfxvoUtU8o5doCDlNcVVWIag0eZ-i6OIaAt5pLw4vwChtbjy$
> > [4]
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l__;!!KwNVnqRv!AgPVEOLGwrWlED6YR5x95VBoHpR0ztaHRRjQxDDq230_rfxvoUtU8o5doCDlNcVVWIag0eZ-i6OIaAt5pLw4v62UfzBp$
> > [5] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473