star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] low energy NPE v2 paper

From: Yuanjing Ji <jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
To: Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
Cc: Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] low energy NPE v2 paper
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:03:59 -0700

Dear convenors,

Thank you for the comments. We update our paper draft and AN notes accordlingly.

One small updates on the final results are I forgot to propagate uncertainties after adding correction on VM/Kaon->e in last version so I fix it in the new version. Also we add another systematic uncertainty from VM/Kaon->e estimation according to Barbara's comments in AN note (see Q1). So the uncertianties are a bit larger in the new version and mainly affect 27 GeV results. Our conclusions remain unchanged. I have clarified in the AN note and updated the plots/data accordingly.

Please find the updated version below:
Response to Barbara:
AN note: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_AN_3nd.pdf
paper: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_paper_3nd.pdf

Response to Sooraj:
paper: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Sooraj_2nd_paper.pdf

Updated paper/note:
AN note:https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_5427_note_Oct11.pdf
Paper:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_5427_Oct11_1col.pdf (1 column for better comparion to last version)
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HFe_v2_5427_Oct11_2col.pdf (2 column for better view)
Paper difference compared to last version: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff-Oct11.pdf

Best
Yuanjing

On 2022-10-05 11:53, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:

Hi Yuanjing,
Thanks for the updated versions of the note and paper. The
discussion on results in the paper draft reads much more concrete now.
I dont have further comments on the analysis note and sign off. I am
happy with the responses to the paper draft as well. I sign off on the
paper draft too with a few further comments

Abstract L11: Given the error bars, this is somewhat an unjustified
conclusion. You could make it a general statement that a smaller eHF
v2 would imply not fully thermalized charm quarks in the QGP
Abstract L13: shows an indication of quark mass hierarchy
L199: What do you use the heavy flavor spectra discussed here for?
L241: Is this a straightforward conclusion? Could a reference be added
if available? The final v2 is a combined results of different initial
conditions + temperature evolution + temperature dependent diffusion.
Models now would have to satisfy the boundary conditions of initial
density and final v2 and have appropriate temperature dependence of
diffusion that satisfies both. I would guess a more detailed
theoretical study is needed to evaluate the impact
L245: Similar comment as abstract here

With these addressed, I sign off

thanks
Sooraj

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:06 PM Barbara Trzeciak
<barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Yuanjing,

Thank you for the updates and answers.
The new paper draft looks good to me. I have only minor remaining
comments, with them addressed I sign off.

Cheers,
Barbara

Paper draft:

On the webpage you have the target journal as: PRC letters/PLB. Have
you decided which one ? PLB has the following requirements:The total
length of the paper should preferably not exceed six journal pages,
equivalent to ten typewritten pages with double spacing, excluding
the list of authors, abstract, references, figure captions and three
figures. In the case that more figures are required, the text should
be shortened accordingly.

Abstract:
- with the magnitude comparable to that at √sNN =200 GeV -
shouldn't it be removed ? You write again about the comparable v2 in
the next sentence.

- so that they may also reach -> and may reach

- L21: move [11, 12, 13, 14] references after (R_AA) measurements
- L52: The events are further required offline to have vertex ....
and with centrality of 0–60%. -> Further offline requirements are:
vertex .... and centrality 0-60%.
- L58: and 39 GeV respectively. -> and 39 GeV, respectively.
- L60: and name and reference for TOF.
- L68: from the photon converted -> from photons converted
- L69: density area. -> density.
- L116: 0.1 GeV/c -> 0.1 GeV/c^2
- L116: that successfully tagged -> that are successfully tagged
- Figure 3 caption: between data and Monte Carlo -> for data and
Monte Carlo
- Figure 3 caption and L138: "Peaks around 5 and 60 cm" - there is
no 60 cm on the plot
- L129: aren't the central reco. efficiency values estimated
currently from the average of the different set-ups and then sys.
unc. in the max deviation ? If so, please update the paper text
accordingly. The default procedure is also not so clear from the AN
- sec. 5 described the PE reco. eff, but the default case is only
mentioned in 5.4 (Uncertainty from pT spectra shape) while in 5.1
and 5.2 the described procedure is still the old one (62GeV spectra
for 54.4 GeV analysis and 39 GeV spectra for 27 GeV).
- L142: the electrons contribution -> the electron contribution
- L158: to second order event -> to the second order event
- L193: [49] paper is for 62.4 GeV
- L196: 62.4 and 27 GeV -> 62.4 and 39 GeV (?)
- L198-202: it's not clear from the paper text why you need the
heavy flavor decayed electron spectra
- L214: denominator -> numerator
- L217: nominator -> denominator
- L227: remove "at 54.4 GeV", now you have an estimate for both
energies.
- L228: result -> results
- L245: I would also say here that it's consistent with zero.
- L250-251: TAMU model is calculated at Au+Au √sNN 62 GeV -> TAMU
calculations are for Au+Au at √sNN = 62 GeV
- L251: TAMU and PHSD model -> TAMU and PHSD models
- L251: the heavy -> that heavy
- L255: the microscope heavy quark interactions -> the microscopic
elastic heavy quark interactions (and remove 'ellastically' from the
next line)
- L258: coefficients -> coefficient
- L302: at 11 GeV -> at √sNN = 11 GeV (same in 303)
- L304-306:..., suggesting a change in the properties of the QCD
media created in these collisions with decreasing energy - I still
don't fully get to what medium properties you refer to - can you be
more specific on the relation between the observed potential
hierarchy and medium properties ?
- L320: remove "as well"
- 321: to the charm quark -> on the charm quark

AN:

- Sec. 9.1, 9.2: RAA for HFE is based on a model. As we discussed
during the coll. meeting, the model has a bump that is not so small
- it describes the preliminary data, but within large uncertainties.
How sensitive are you here to the assumption on the RAA ? Have you
checked how the final result differs if you assume RAA = 1 ? (To
have an idea of a potential sys. unc. from this source).

Responses, AN:

_- 8, - Fig.26 and 27: you've changed binning for some of the sys.
unc. sources, which could be fine, but a bit confusing because
different sources now have different binning and it's also not clear
how then 3 the total sys. unc. in the fine binning is obtained. I
would use the same binning for all the sources, it should correspond
to the binning that you have for the reconstruction efficiency.
Also, there is no unc. for the lowest pT bin for nHitsFit. -_
_The reason that I use a wide bin instead of using the same binning
as the final results is to avoid introducing statistical
fluctuations into systematic uncertainties. I use linear
interpolations between these bins to get the systematics at a fine
bin. _

That's fine, but please make it clear in the AN.

_- For the lowest pT bin of nHitsFit, I use a wide bin when
estimating the uncertainties._

Why do you need such a wide bin for nHitsFit at low pT ?

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 9:15 AM Yuanjing Ji <jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:

Dear convenors,

Thank you for your comments. I have prepared my responses and
updated
the paper and AN note accordingly.
Updated paper and note:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HFe_v2_paper_2022sep27.pdf

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_analysis_note_2022sep27.pdf

Paper difference between updated and previous version:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/difference_sep27_may22.pdf

Please find my response to your comments below:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Sooraj_paper.pdf
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/sooraj_note_2nd.pdf

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/barbara_paper_2nd.pdf

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_note_2nd.pdf

Website of the low energy HF electron paper:
https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/jiyj/NPEweb

Best
Yuanjing

On 2022-06-23 12:19, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:

Dear Yuanjing,
Sorry for the delayed response. Thanks for taking into

account my

comments and the updated version of the analysis note. I am fine

with

the responses and the updated note.

One further clarification on Q38:
Is the estimate from using only the near-side used anywhere in

the

results? It seems quite arbitrary to assume that the lower limit

for

non-flow is when near-side has no modifications and away side

gets

completely washed out! We do know near side shape also changes.

Plus,

if you are not using the full phi range (with flat values beyond

pi/2)

to calculate here it would be wrong too, because v2 should be

defined

in the full phi range as the Fourier functions are orthogonal

only in

the full range. You wont be calculating v2 with a limited range.

If

this part is not used in the results, I suggest to exclude it

from the

note

Also on the section 11.1, now significance figures are quoted

for eHF

and phi v2 compared to pi v2 at lower energies. Its stated the

eHF v2

at 27 GeV is 1..85 sigma lower than eHF v2 at 54.4 GeV and phi

v2 at

27 GeV. However, from the error bars in the plot (Fig 79), they

are

within 1 sigma. How are these numbers calculated?

Please find some comments from me on the paper draft below:

Abstract: As the error bars are large, I think we should not

make any

conclusions for the measurements from 27 GeV in the abstract

than

stating its zero within large uncertainties. Also the claim of
thermalization from collectivity can be questioned by referees.

The

last sentence of the abstract reads disconnected. Have to

explain what

particles are compared and for what quantity/dependence. If the

last

sentence is based on Fig.9, its too strong a conclusion. The

last

points for phi and eHF are within one sigma from the pion data

points,

can hardly make the conclusion in the abstract. The abstract I

believe

is already strong with the measurement of comparable v2 for eHF

at

54.4 GeV as at 200 GeV and the inferences drawn from it
Abstract L1: We report on
Abstract L4: v2 in Au+Au --> in Au+Au

Abstract L9: hadrons at this energy

L4: extremely
L7: is created
L10: microscopic structure is unclear here, please consider

rephrasing

L15: Remove sentence starting 'The carry ..'
L22: LHC energies
L56: passing the selection
L59: at similar energies --> at 62.4 and 39 GeV respectively
L84: particle species and the merged pions .... particle samples

-->

samples
Fig.1 It might be useful to indicate also the merged pion band
L116: why including is needed here?
L131: You have to specify at which energies
L156: reaction plane --> second order event plane
L158: The event plane is ... this sentence can be removed
L182: Are these difference used in systematic uncertainty

evaluation.

Did I miss that in the note? Why should the difference inform on
systematic uncertainties?
L212: Are there no discussions on systematic uncertainties on

eff_reco

and N_pho evaluation and v2_pho evaluation? And uncertainties

for

various extrapolations considered?
L230: Does diffusion at different temperatures cause largely

different

v2? Can a reference be added for this sentence?

L234: I think this speculation should be avoided, given the

precision

of the data
L258: Why there is no discussion on the disagreement at lower

pT?

L276: How is this done? The reverse mapping is not possible? Is

it

from the average? I dont see the discussion on the note

regarding

this. In the note a specific pT range for eHF v2 is quoted
L288: It should be modified as hint of drop
L289: Its a strong conclusion to draw from such a limited

significance

L299: At low pT (< 1 GeV/c), this is not consistent, as shown in

Fig.

8. So need to be careful here
L302: QCD --> QGP

thanks
Sooraj

On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 9:43 PM Barbara Trzeciak
<barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Yuanjing,

thanks for the answers and the new version of the AN and the

draft.

I have a few remaining comments, please see below. And I will

send

my comment to the paper draft soon.

Cheers,
Barbara

Replies:
(18) - Have you considered relaxation of the mean and width
parameters for the sys. unc. estimation?
_- In systematic uncertainty estimation, we also directly take

the

normalized nSigmaE histograms, instead of gaussian functions,

as the

templates to carry out purity fitting. So the uncertainties

from the

description of the particles’ nSigmaE shape, including mean

and

width, will be taken into account. And considering the

statistics

under most of the momentum bins, uncertainty from mean and

width are

quite small. Also when carrying out template fitting to extract
purity, we have already had 5 free parameters (particle

yields), so

it is not suitable to add more free parameters_

Yes, but at very low pT the sys. unc. on the purity are not

even

visible with the current variations. Maybe then, even if the

means

and withs from the fits to the pure hadron and electron samples

have

small uncertainties, they will give a not negligible effect

compared

to the other variations that you use currently for the sys.

unc.

estimation. My point is not to relax the mean and the sigma

fully,

but from your fits to the pure samples you get values that have

some

uncertainties, you can then put limits on the mean and width in

the

total fit to e.g. mean +/- 3unc. Also, up to 0.33 the merged

pions

don't fit so well in the total fit.

AN:
- nSigmaE fits for 27 GeV: here I spotted that in some bins the
electron fit is taken over by hadrons. Between momentum of 1

and

~1.1 GeV/c and then in the 0.53-0.55 GeV/c range the electron
gaussian is replaced by the Kaon gaussian. This is probably

because

you don't constrain the yields for 27 GeV and shouldn't change

your

results (I think all of these cases are in the excluded

regions),

but still it would be good to update it for future. And I think

it's

better to have consistent methods for 54 and 27 GeV.

- Purity estimation: what is the reason to take histograms for

pions

instead of constraints based on the gaussian fits to these
distributions? The gaussian shape looks to describe the pion
distribution well. Taking this variation as the sys. unc.

introduces

quite large unc. at higher pT where it seems to me that it

might be

driven by the statistical fluctuation in the pion histograms.

For

the cases where you use histograms for pions in the total fit,

could

you please add stat. unc. on the purity distribution ? I'm

making

this point also because the purity for 54 GeV at 2-2.5 GeV/c is
larger than 95% and if the unc. were smaller there, this range

could

be usable for the v2 calculation. This drop is not visible for

27

GeV when using histogram when you use wider bins, so I wonder

if

this sys. for 54 GeV is not driven by the statistical

fluctuations

in the pion sample - you don't have many entries in the tails

of

your pion distribution and then when you normalise it for the

total

fit, these fluctuations are enhanced.

- L366: missing figure number
- L433: missing figure number
- "The 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙 in Au+Au 39 and 62.4 GeV are also

taken

from PHENIX direct photon paper [20] and PhD thesis on this
measurement [34]." - why do you take Ncoll from the PHENIX

paper,

not from independent Glauber calculations ?
- Fig. 20: are these plots for 62. 4 GeV ? If so, it's

missliding to

label them "Au+Au 54.4 GeV", I would change it to "Au+Au 62.4

GeV"

and explain in the text that these spectra are used for the

54.4 GeV

analysis.
- Fig.26 and 27: you've changed binning for some of the sys.

unc.

sources, which could be fine, but a bit confusing because

different

sources now have different binning and it's also not clear how

then

the total sys. unc. in the fine binning is obtained. I would

use the

same binning for all the sources, it should correspond to the
binning that you have for the reconstruction efficiency.
Also, there is no unc. for the lowest pT bin for nHitsFit.
L483: uncertainty for is given in Fig. 26. Figure 29 shows -

there's

a missing word "for ... is", also Fig.26 and 27, and Figures 28

and

29 show.
With the reconstruction efficiency obtained from the embedding
simulation -> is it the same as the combined reconstruction
efficiency that you describe ? What's the difference between
efficiencies in Fig.28,29 and fig. 37?
L578: flatten Fig. ??(a) -> missing figure number
Fig. 63, 64: why for 54.4 you have Npho stat (data) and Npho

stat

(embed) while for 27 GeV there's only one contribution: Npho

stat,

is it only from data ? And why the Npho stat (embed) for 54.4

has

quite a big contribution, larger than sys. unc. in some bins ?
Fig. 80: second HFe v2 point at 27 GeV is missing.

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:46 PM Yuanjing Ji

<jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>

wrote:

Dear convenors,

I would like to draw your attention that the updated NPE v2

note,

paper
as well as the responses to convenors' comments have been sent

to

PWG
for more than two weeks. I am wondering do you have any

further

comments
on the low-energy NPE v2 paper and note?

Thanks,
Best
Yuanjing

On 2022-05-10 16:42, Yuanjing Ji via Star-hf-l wrote:

Dear convenors,

Again, thank you for your valuable comments. We have updated

our

notes/paper draft and prepared responses to your comments.

Please find

the details below. We would like to get your sign-off and

move

on to

GPC.

Paper draft:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Heavy_Flavor_Electron_v2_at_27_and_54_4_Au_Au_Collisions_May10.pdf

Note:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_at_Au_Au_27_and_54_4_GeV_analysis_note_May10.pdf

Website: https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/jiyj/NPEweb

Response to convenors:
Comments to Note:
response to Sooraj:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Sooraj_NPE_v2_note_May10.pdf

response to Barbara:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_NPE_v2_note_May10.pdf

response to Yi:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Yang_NPE_v2_note_May10.pdf

Comments to Paper:
response to Barbara:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_NPE_v2_paper_May10.pdf

response to Yi:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Yi_yang_NPE_v2_paper_May10.pdf

Best
Yuanjing

On 2021-07-01 21:22, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:

Dear Yuanjing,
Sorry for the late reply on this. Please find some comments

from me

on the nicely prepared analysis note below

L 37: if constructing --> for reconstructing
Fig 1. Do you also have a plot of the pT correlation of the

electron

and parent HF hadron? Would be good to see what the parent

pT

the pT_e

1.2 GeV/c correspond to

Fig 4b. Do you have a similar plot for 27 GeV?
L 55: is nToFMatch same as TOF multiplicity?
L 112: What does the primary track requirement have in

addition

to DCA

cut?
Fig 7: For the merged pions, are these the selected sample?

It

doesnt

seem to correspond to the band in Fig.6b. How can by

selecting

on

large nSigma_pi a merged pion pure sample be selected at

higher

pT

where TOF PID is not so clean?
Fig 8: Can you include the PID fits for other pT regions in

the

appendix?
L 148: What about overlap regions with K, merged pi or

proton?

L 149: Are these checks only for regions with significant pi

overlap?

Fig 9.a What eta range is this for?
Eq 8 Is there any energy dependence for the spectra to be

taken

here

as the data are for 39 and 62.4 GeV?
Eq 11: Could you specify the low and high pT regions for the

input

gamma spectra from data or p+p scaled?
Fig 15: There doesnt seem to be a smooth continuation

between

the low

pT scaling and the high pT pQCD regions. And there is energy
dependence for the pQCD part. How is this accomodated in the
weighting?

L 202: What are the eta weights taken for the parent

particle

distributions? Are they taken to be flat? Is there any

systematic

checks on efficiency determination done from this?
L 209: why is this factor needed? There is already

normalization for

pT and by number of parent particles. Is this different for

different

sources?
Fig 54, 55: What are the partner electron pT in these

figures?

Is it

all pT?
Fig 54-56: Are these for 54.4 GeV? could you specify? Can

the

27 GeV

plots also be added for completion?
Fig 18: Could you add a brief description describing how the

error

bands shown is obtained?
Eq 13: I am a bit confused here. Shouldnt you just multiply

the

efficiency with a correction factor Rcut,MC/Rcut,data, where

Rcut is

the fraction of normalized counts from a cut? Wouldnt this

account for

the shape difference between data and MC in the efficiency
calculation?

L 232, 233: typos in comparison symbols

Fig 21: How does this impact the efficiency calculation?

There

is a

momentum shift depending on the conversion vertex position,

should

this be taken into account in the efficiency calculation?

L 240: Could you have a small separate paragraph/section for

the Ke3

--> e contribution? Why is it discussed together with

efficiency? The

30% and 10% quoted are fractions of eHF?

Fig 24: What are the systematic uncertainties shown here? Is

this the

combined uncertainty from phe efficiency and purity

calculations?

L 246-252: Many typos in comparison symbols, please fix

Fig 26b: Why are the 27 GeV values not shown? Could this be

added?

Fig 27a: Is the recentering and flattening done in small

centrality

bins or for the 0-60% centrality? Will this introduce any

bias?

Can

the inclusive v2 be checked for EP flattened in 5% and 0-60%
centrality bins?

L 258 and other places: reconstructed electrons -->

reconstructed

photonic electrons

L 274: A scaling looking at BES energy dependence for v2

should

let

you extrapolate to the 54.4 Gev from 62.4 GeV, isnt? or

similar

for 27

GeV

L 285: This paragraph is not clear. Why do you need to

flatten

the

input phi distribution? You are sampling from a

distribution,

the

statistical fluctuations should be kept for a meaningful

statistical

uncertainties on your final calculated phe v2 values. Do you

have a

plot showing the impact of this weight on the evaluated phe

v2?

Eq 33: So with this, the v2 is calculated for different

partner

pT

values? What is the x-axis in Fig 34?

After Eq 33: Do you have a figure describing this

reweighting?

What is

F_reco a function of? pT? May be Im confused here a bit,

what

is the

distinction between reconstructed electron and photonic

electron here?

Eq 34: What are the number of points here referring to? Is

this

for

the uncertainty in the scale factor c? What are data and sim

values

referring to here? This part might need a bit more expansion

and

figures.

Eq 38: subscript should be sys in the second equation

L 308: What makes the phe v2 uncertainties largest? This was

as

mentioned above not quite clear as to what goes into the

estimation

L 319+: many comparison symbol typo

L 341: Fig reference missing

Fig 43: What is the reason for the double peaked structure

of

the ke3

fractions? Arent the quality cuts pT independent?

Fig 46: This was discussed before I guess, only the full

range

calculation makes sense for v2. If you use only the near

side

range,

then by definition, v2 vales will be different.

L 412+ Again many symbol typos, please fix

L 465: Is the low pT difference not significant? what could

cause this

difference?

thanks

Sooraj

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:59 PM Yuanjing Ji

<jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>

wrote:

Hi Barbara and Yi,

Thank you for the very nice comments. I will send the

updated

version
once I address all the comments.

Best
Yuanjing

On 2021-06-17 12:30, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:

Hi Yuanjing,
please find my comment to the paper draft below.

Cheers,
Barbara

Paper draft comments:

- abstract:

- Heavy flavor electron (e HF ) v2 in Au+Au √sNN = 54.4

GeV

collisions -> Heavy flavor electron (e HF ) v2 in Au+Au

collisions

at

√sNN = 54.4 GeV

- of 200 GeV -> at √sNN = 200 GeV

- "their parent charm hadron v2" - but you consider here D

mesons

only not B ?

- The measured e HF v2 in 54.4 GeV -> The measured e HF v2

at

54.4

GeV

- thermal equilibrium in Au+Au 54.4 GeV collisions -

thermal

equilibrium in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 54.4 GeV

- in Au+Au √sNN = 27 GeV -> in Au+Au collisions at

√sNN =

27

GeV

- This indicates a hint -> This hints

- "The energy dependence of particle v2 reveals the quark

mass

hierarchy in the process of thermalization in high-energy

nuclear

collisions" - This statement might be too strong. It's

hard

to say

if

we can conclude so based on HF results in fig. 8 that have

large

uncertainties. Please also see my comments to the AN

regarding

this.

- Figures: on some figures you have "Au+Au Collisions

0-60%"

in

other

"Au+Au 0-60%" or "Au+Au Collisions" - please unify this

among

all

the

figures

- L3: theory to describe strong interaction in laboratory

->

theory

that describes strong interactions

- L8: you cite here RHIC papers only [1,2], while in the

text

you

also

mention LHC.

- L8: of current heavy ion experiments -> of the current

heavy ion

experiments

- L14: comparable to larger -> comparable or larger

- L20: There are quite significant experimental

achievements

on

the

charm hadron elliptic flow (v2) [7, 8, 9] and nuclear

modification

factor (RAA) measurements -> There are many experimental

results

on

the charm hadron elliptic flow (v2) [7,9,9] and nuclear

modification

factor (RAA) [10, 11, 12, 13]

- L22: at top RHIC -> at the top RHIC

- L24: with the -> in the

- L25: are coupled with the QGP medium strongly -> are

strongly

coupled with the QGP medium

- L26: using the single electrons from heavy flavor decays

->

using

single electrons from open-charm and -bottom hadron decays

- L27: show -> provide

- L27: there are also ATLAS resutls on muons from HF

decays

in

Pb+Pb

at 5.02 TeV:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595 [1]

[1] [1]

[2]

- L30: at critical temperature region -> around the

critical

temperature

- L33: for heavy flavor program will be focusing on

further

-> of

heavy flavor program is to further

- L34: remove "uncertainty"

- L 36: RHIC top energy region will offer -> RHIC top

energy

offers

- L37: this QGP transport parameter. -> the QGP transport

parameter,

D_s.

- L28: Previously RHIC experiments have conducted ->

Previously,

RHIC

experiments conducted

- L40: contained large uncertainties statistically and

systematically

-> have large statistically and systematically

uncertainties

- L41: such that one cannot -> therefore one cannot

- L46: used in the analysis -> utilized in this analysis

- L52: used in the analysis for tracking -> used for

tracking

- L55: for -> of

- L56: The data sample statistics -> The statistics of the

data

sample

- L63: require -> is required

- L65-66: converted in high detector material density area

->

converted in areas of high detector material density

- L67: Electron tracks are first selected by -> Electron

are

identified using

- L69: and required -> and are required

- L74: electron samples -> electrons

- L75: and PID cuts -> and particle identification (PID)

cuts

- L75: called as -> called

- L77-78: Merged pion happens when TPC cannot seperate two

pion

tracks

due to finite resolution -> Merged pions is a sample of

two

pion

tracks that cannot by separated due to the finite

resolution

of

TPC.

- Fig.1 caption: (Plot(a) depicts the dE/dx distribution

of

the

tracks

that pass TOF PID -> (a) dE/dx distribution of tracks that

pass

TOF

PID

The purity of inclusive electron samples after both dE/dx

and

TOF

PID

cuts is shown in plot(b). -> (b): purity of the inclusive

electron

sample after both dE/dx and TOF PID in Au+Au collisions at

√ sNN

=

54 GeV. The gray band represents systematic uncertainties.

- Fig.1a: a suggestion, it might be more useful to show an

example

projection of nSigmaE with a multi-gaussian fit

- L82: are used -> is used

- L83: electrons candidates -> electron candidates

- L83: add that nSigmaE projections are done in narrow

momentum

bins

- L84: the ratio of electron yields -> a ratio of the

electron

yield

- L84: over the integrated yields -> over the yield

- L85: within nσe cuts -> within the analysis nσe cut

- L88: crossover with electron -> cross with the electron

- L89: momentum range -> momentum ranges - give also

approximate

values of these ranges

- L89: the significant drop of electron purity -> a

significant

drop

of electron purity, as can be seen in Fig. 1(b).

- L90: into systematic -> in the shown systematic

- L92: description for -> description of

- L93: remove -> exclude from the further analysis

- L94: range within -> ranges of

- Fig. 2 caption: Photonic electron partner pT (a) -> (a)

Photonic

electron partner pT - same for (b) and (c)

- L97: decay -> decays

- L102: Tracks from inclusive electrons -> Inclusive

electron

tracks

- L103: called as tagged electron -> called tagged

electrons

- L104: electrons -> electrons

- L108: are called as reconstruction -> are called

reconstructed

- L109: backgrounds of this method are estimated ->

background is

estimated

- L110: yields are -> yield is

- L113-114: is the e^pho reconstruction efficiency

defined

as the

estimated e^reco yield over Npho . \epsilon^reco is

determined by

track quality cuts on partner electron and -> is the

photonic

electron

reconstruction efficiency that takes into account track

quality

cuts

applied on the partner electron and

- L115: reconstruction cuts -> the reconstruction cuts

- Fig. 2: please move it closer to the place in the text

where you

describe it

- L117: STAR detector -> the STAR detector

- L117: photon -> photons

- L119: in Au+Au 39 and 62.4 GeV collisions -> in Au+Au

collisions

at

√ sNN = 39 and 62.4 GeV

- L119-120: eta spectra is -> The \eta spectra are

- L122: as the real -> as in the real

- L123: of partner -> of the partner

- L124: tagged -> the tagged

- L124: Au+Au 54.4 GeV collisions -> Au+Au collisions at

√

sNN

=

54.4 GeV

- L127: TPC inner field cage -> the TPC inner field cage

- L128: shows a good description of data -> described the

data

well.

- L129: electrons contributed by Dalitz decay and photon

conversion in

the total -> the electron contribution from the Dalitz

decays

and

the

photon conversions to the total

- L131: mainly contributed by -> mostly from

- L133: efficiency are -> efficiency is

- L134: black data point -> black points

- L137: are shown -> is shown

- L137-138: Because the drop of charm hadrons production

cross

section as the decrease of energy is faster than those of

light

hadrons, -> Because the charm hadron production cross

section

drops

faster with the decreasing collision energy than the light

hadron

production cross section,

- L141: here you write about the reaction plane, but later

you

write

that you use event plane. Should be added that event plane

is

an

estimation for the reaction plane in an experiment.

- L144: with opposite η sign of the electron -> in

opposite

η

region

of the detector than the electron candidate

- L145: are applied -> is applied

- L147: event plane -> the event plane

- L148: would be good what is the value of the resolution.

- L150: as -> as used for the

- Fig. 3 caption: (a): The relative fraction of electrons

from

various sources in the photonic electron sample,

including:

Dalitz

decay ...

"Photonic electrons are consisted with various ingredients

including"-

remove

The total photonic electron reconstruction efficiency is

shown as

the

solid points in panel (a) -> (b) The total photonic

electron

reconstruction efficiency shown as the solid points

- Fig. 4 caption: refer to bands and data points using

they

style

not

colors. The same comment to other figures.

GeV collisions -> GeV

- Fig. 5: use different area styles for the red and blue

bands

y-axis title: Electron Anisotropy -> v_2

- L155-159: it's not clear from the text what is the

reconstructed

electron v2, why you show it and why you discuss

uncertainties on

it,

as what you need is the photonic electron v2. It's also

not

clear

how

do you obtain the unc. on the photonic electron v2. Please

make

this

part more clear for a reader.

- L161: inclusive electrons and their -> the inclusive

electron

sample

and the hadron

- L164: are estimated by-> is estimated using

- L165: simulation -> simulations

- L165: TPC tracking efficiency are -> the TPC tracking

efficiency

is

- L168: spectra is -> spectrum is

- L168: Au+Au 62.4 GeV -> Au+Au collisions at √ sNN =

62.4

GeV

- You don't comment on the kaon contribution at 27 GeV

- L180: are the multiplicity -> is the multiplicity

- L180: event plane -> the event plane

- L185-205: you don't discuss results below 1.2 GeV/c, it

would be

good to have some observations about the low pT part in

this

paragraph

as well.

- L186: 27, 54.4 -> 27 and 54.4 GeV

- L187: and 200 GeV -> and at √ sNN = 200 GeV

- L189: in 54.4 GeV -> for 54.4 GeV

- L190: contains much improved precision both

statistically

and

systematically -> are more precise, both in terms of

statistical

and

systematic uncertainties.

- L195: in 54.4 GeV -> at √ sNN = 54.4 GeV

- L196: so strongly with the QGP medium that they may also

have

reached -> strongly with the QGP medium and may reach

- L198: "although the collision energy is nearly a factor

of

4

lower"

- I think it's better to give an estimate of the

difference

in the

initial energy density for the two energies.

- L201-202: ".. at temperature region close to the

critical

temperature. " - not sure if this statement is correct.

By

critical

temperature you refer to which exactly temperature ?

- Fig. 7 at 54.4 GeV collisions -> in Au+Au collisions at

√

sNN

=

54.4 GeV

- L211: "elastic collisional scatterings should dominate"

-

add

some

references to this statement

- L211: this low pT region that is covered in this

analysis

->

this

the pT region covered by this analysis

-Fig. 6 caption: 54.4 (black points) and 27 (green points)

GeV ->

54.4

GeV (black points) and 27 GeV (green points). black points

->

full

circles, same for other points.

- L226: comparable -> consistent

- L228: centroid of data points -> measured central values

- L231: is often different -> differ

- L232-233: To have a fair comparison between the charm

hadron v2

with

identified particles v2 -> In order to compare v2 of charm

hadrons

with the identified particle v2

- L236: calculate -> simulate

- L237: follow the number-of-constituent-quark, (mT −

m0)/nq,

scaling

- L238: as far as I understand, you use preliminary

results

for

light

hadron v2 at 54 GeV. I think these results are now in GPC,

so

it

would

be good to use the updated results here, once they are

published.

Something to keep in mind for later.

- L240: with that of e^HF from data -> with the measured

e^HF

v2

- L241: which is corresponding -> , that corresponds

- L242: have obtained -> obtain

- L242-243: in Au+Au 54.4 GeV collisions. It suggests

that

the

charm

quark may be close -> and maybe be close

- L244: at Au+Au √ sNN = 54.4 GeV -> in Au+Au

collisions

at

√

sNN = 54.4 GeV

- L249: at 7.7-200 GeV -> at √ sNN = 7.7-200 GeV

- L250, 251: at 2.76 TeV -> at √ sNN = 2.76 TeV

- L250-252: e HF and φ v2 at 2.76 TeV are lack of minimum

bias

measurements and scaled to 0 − 60% centrality by

eccentricity

[57]

-> Since there are no minimum bias measurements of e HF

and

φ v2

in

Pb+Pb collisions at √ sNN = 2.76 TeV, the results in

narrower

centrality ranges [ref] are scaled to 0 − 60% centrality

by

eccentricity [57].

- L253: "while become much smaller at low energies" - this

needs

to be

quantified, within the uncertainties it's not so much

smaller

-

please

also see comments to the AN regarding this. Also, D0 point

is

only

for

200 GeV.

- L255: "With decreasing collision energy, ..." - please

see

comments

on this statement in other places.

- Fig. 8 doesn't have K as described in the text. Also,

the

phi

results that you showed during the coll. meeting looked

more

precise

and further from pi v2 than the results on fig. 8. What

has

changed ?

The D0 point overlaps with the HFe point, I don't think

it's

necessary

there, or maybe shift it a bit more. Please also see

comments

to

the

AN on this results.

- Fig. 8: y-axis title, remove "@ <kT> .. .", add

information

about

<kT> on the plot

- L261: in Au+Au 27 GeV collisions -> in Au+Au collisions

at

√

sNN

= 27 GeV

- L262: while e HF in 54.4 GeV collisions shows a

significant

non-zero

v2 -> while at √ sNN = 54.4 GeV a significant non-zero

v2

is

observed for pT < 2 GeV/c.

- L263: to that of -> to that at

- L264: "Several transport model calculations under

predict

the

measured .." - isn't the discrepancy below pT of 1 GeV/c

and

above

there's agreement ?

- L268: can still gain -> gain

- L269: the evolution of the QCD medium -> the

interactions

with

the

expanding QCD medium

- L270: Au+Au 54.4 GeV collisions as well -> Au+Au

collisions

at

√

sNN = 54.4 GeV

- L271: new constraints to the -> further constraints on

the

- L271-272: reference to this sentence would be useful

- L272-273: "We observe clear ...as the decrease of

collisions

energies." - this sentence might be too strong, comments

as

above

and

to the AN.

- L274-275: this sentence is quite generic and doesn't

seem

to

bring

much. Either add some argument why, mention what is still

expected

to

come and at what energies, etc., or remove this sentence.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 9:33 AM Yi Yang

<yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw>

wrote:

Dear Yuanjing,

I have some comments and suggestions for your

consideration

on

your

nice paper draft.

- General: all symbols, like e^{pho}, N^{NPE}, N_{Inc}

...,

please

use romain font for the superscripts. For example, e^{\rm

pho},

N^{\rm NPE}

- Title: Heavy Flavor --> Heavy-Flavor
- Abstract: it would be nice to mention STAR here.
Heavy flavor electron --> Heavy-flavor electrons
exhibit --> exhibits
with the expectation that their parent charm
hadron v_2 follows number-... --> with the expectation

of

their

parent charm hadron v_2 following number-...
The measured e^HF v_2 in Au+Au sqrt(s_NN) = 27 GeV
--> The measured e^HF v_2 at sqrt(s_NN) = 27 GeV
-L2: Heavy ion --> Heavy-ion
-L3: to describe strong interaction in laboratory, --> to

describe

strong interaction, in laboratory,
-L7: , namely the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) had been --> ,

namely

the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP), had been
-L7: heavy ion collisions --> heavy-ion collisions
-L8: heavy ion experiments --> heavy-ion experiments
-L10: Heavy flavor quarks --> Heavy-flavor quarks
-L11: large masses --> heavy masses
-L12: Heavy flavor quarks --> Heavy-flavor
-L13: heavy ion collisions --> heavy-ion collisions
-L14: larger than --> longer than
-L16: Heavy quark --> Heavy-flavor quarks
-L18: heavy quark --> Heavy-flavor quark
-L20: There are quite significant experimental

achievements

-->

There are quite a lot of experimental achievements (?)
-L22: at top RHIC energy --> at the top RHIC energy
-L23: at high transverse momentum p_T --> at high p_T
-L26: heavy flavor decays --> heavy-flavor hadron decays
-L33: heavy flavor program --> heavy-flavor program
-L35: (mu_B) etc. --> (mu_B), etc.
-L35: heavy quark --> Heavy-flavor quark
-L38: Previously RHIC experiments --> Previous RHIC

experiments

-L54: 35cm --> 35 cm
-L54: Totally, 5.7 x 10^8 ... --> Total 5.7 x 10^8 ...
-L55: The data sample statistics used here is more than

-->

The

statistics of these data sample is more than
-L58: Add reference of the previous STAR measurement
-L65: to suppress photon decayed electrons converted in

high

detector material density area --> to suppress the

electrons

from

the photon conversion at high detector material density

area.

(?)

-L68: path-length --> path length
-L68: time-of-flight --> time of flight
-L71: pass 1/beta cuts are --> passed 1/beta cuts is
-L75: PID cuts --< particle identification (PID)

requirements

-L75: called --> categorized (?)
-L77: proton and so called merged pions --> proton, and

``merged

pions''
-L78: finite resolution --> finite spatial resolution
-Figure 1: (Plot(a) depicts the dE/dx ... pass TOF PID

-->

(a)

The

dE/dx ... passed TOF PID
The purity of ... PID cuts is shown in plot (b)
--> (b) The purity of .... PID cuts as a function of p_T
-L83: pass 1/beta cuts --> passed 1/beta cuts
-L88: , kaon and proton dE/dx bands crossover --> the

dE/dx

band

for kaon and proton crossover
-L90: into systematic uncertainty --> into the systematic
uncertainty
-L91: It would be good to elaborate more on "the

selection

of

pion

samples".
-L95: Please explain why the systematic uncertainty is
out-of-control in these regions.
-L96: heavy flavor electrons --> heavy-flavor electrons

(e^{\rm

HF})
-L99: N^{NPE} = p x N^{Inc} + N^{pho} --> N^{NPE} = p x

N^{Inc}

-

N^{pho}
-L104: A tagged electrons --> A tagged electron
-L105: as photonic electron candidate --> as the photonic

electron

candidate
-L105: di-electron passes --> dielectron pair passed
-L112: pass reconstruction -->passed reconstruction
-L113: \epsilon^{reco} is the e^{pho} reconstruction

efficiency

defined as the estimated e^{reco} yield over N^{\pho}.
\epsilon^{reco} is determined by ... -->

\epsilon^{reco}

is

the

e^{pho} reconstruction efficiency and is determined by

...

("defined as the estimated e^{reco} yield over N^{\pho}"
reads a bit strange to me.)
-L120: shape of --> shapes of
-L122: Fig. 2 shows --> Figure 2 (a) - (c) show
-L124: pair-DCA and decay-length distribution -->

pair-DCA,

and

decay-length distributions
-L125: electron 0.4 < p_T < 2.5 GeV/c --> electron with

0.4

< p_T

< 2.5 GeV/c
-L128:, respectively. The simulation... --> ,

respectively,

and

they can be well described by the simulation.
-L128: Fig 3 (a) depict --> Figure 3 (a) depicts
-L130: in total photonic electrons --> to the total

photonic

electrons
-L132: in the TPC inner field cage (TPC-IFC) --> in the

TPC-IFC

-L133: dominated --> dominant
-L133: The estimated e^{pho} reconstruction efficiency

are

-->

The

estimated reconstruction efficiency for e^{pho} is
-L134: Reconstruction efficiency for --> Reconstruction
efficiencies from
-L136: 54.4 and 200 --> 54.4, and 200
-L142: add a reference for the v2 definition
-L147: azimuth angle --> azimuthal angle
-L147: Please describe how to evaluate the event plane

resolution

or give a reference.
-L151: Due to lack of --> Due to the lack of
-Figure 3: are consisted with --> are consisted of
solid points in panel (a) --> solid points in
panel (b)
from different sources. --> from different
sources: Green is pi^0/eta --> e (green), gamma --> e

from

TPC-IFC

(magenta), and gamma --> e from other (red).
-Figure 4: 54.4 (blue) and 27 (green) --> 54.4 (blue),

and

27

(green)
-Figure 5: The blue data points --> The black data points
-L157: the blue points --> the black points
-L158: the pink band --> the red band
-L166: that satisfy --> and satisfy
-L166: add a reference for PYTHIA
-L167: B=0.5 T --> B = 0.5 T
-L169: The input heavy flavor electron --> The input

e^{\rm

HF}

-L170: add a reference for FONLL
-L171: please define N_coll
-L173: in inclusive electron --in the inclusive electron

sample

-L176: from from PYTHIA --> from PYTHIA
-L178: sum for --> sum over
-L179: an average --> the average
-L183: upper-limit --> upper limit
-L185: v_2 of heavy flavor electrons (e^HF) --> v_2 of

e^{\rm HF}

-L187: and 200 GeV from previous publication --> and the

previous

200 GeV publication
-L187: The blue hatched --> The gray hatched
-L190: at similar collision energies [14, 23] --> at

similar

collision energies, 200 and 62.4 GeV [14, 23]
-L191: much improved --> better
-L192: are sizable --> is sizable
-L193: at 1.2 < p_T < 2 GeV/c --> within 1.2 < p_T < 2

GeV/c

-L198: although --> even though
-L199: to sqrt{s_NN} = 200 GeV --> to 200 GeV
-L204: although --> however
-L206: experiment results --> experimental results
-L208: PHSD --> PHSD (parton-hadron string dynamics)
-L211: that is covered --> where is covered
-L218: In the PHSD (parton-hadron string dynamics) model

--> In

the PHSD model
-Figure 6: Heavy flavor electron --> Heavy-flavor

electron

to previous data --> to the previous measurement
-Figure 7: compare with TAMU, and PHSD calculations -->

compared

to the TAMU and PHSD calculations
-L222: PHSD model --> The PHSD model
-L235: The PYTHIA decayer generator --> The PYTHIA

generator

-L237: follow the (m_T - m_0)/n_q scaling --> follow the
number-of-constituent-quark (NCQ) scaling, (m_T -

m_0)/n_q,

where

m_T is ..., m_0 is... , and n_q is ... (or give a

reference), to

those of light hadrons ...
-L243: to those of light hadrons in Au+Au 54.4 GeV

collisions. It

suggests that the charm quark ... --> to those of light

hadrons

and the charm quark
-L246: D^0 and e^HF --> D^0, and e^HF
-L248: phi and D^0 --> phi, and D^0
-L252: D^0 and e^HF --> D^0, and e^HF
-Figure 8: D^0 and heavy flavor electron e^HF --> D^0,

and

e^HF

are statistical and systematic errors combined
--> are combined statistical and systematic

uncertainties.

-L264: under predict --> underestimate
-L267: number-of-constituent-quark scaling --> NCQ

scaling

-L274: interesting --> important (?)
-L275: and LHC. --> and the LHC.

Reference:
- all et al. should be {\it et al.}
- all (STAR) or (PHENIX) should be (STAR Collaboration)

or

(PHENIX Collaboration)
- all issue numbers should be in bold, for example Phys.

Rev. C

71 (2005) --> Phys. Rev. C {\bf 71) (2005)

-L379: de/dx calibration of the star tpc --> dE/dx

calibration of

the STAR TPC
-L386: A. Adare, S. Afanasiev ... --> A. Adare et al.

(PHENIX

Collaboration)
-L392: author = ??? Move authors to the beginning
-L400: A. Adare, S. Afanasiev ... --> A. Adare et al.

(PHENIX

Collaboration)
-L427: A. Adare, S. Afanasiev ... --> A. Adare et al.

(PHENIX

Collaboration)
-L439: S(NN)**(1/2) looks strange , 200-GeV --> 200 GeV
-L442: gev au-au collisions --> GeV Au-Au collisions
-L463: 083c01 ???

Cheers,
Yi

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yi Yang, Associate Professor
Department of Physics
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, 701 Taiwan
E-Mail: yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw
Tel: +886-6-2757575 ext.65237
Fax: +886-6-2747995
Group Web: http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/~yiyang [2] [2] [2]

[1]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:19 AM Yuanjing Ji

<jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>

wrote:

Dear convenors and all,

Here is a gentle reminder. The NPE v2 at 54.4 and 27 GeV

paper

draft has
been ready for PWG review for about two weeks.

The website is located at:
https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/jiyj/NPEweb
The links to the paper draft, analysis note, past

presentations

are all
included on the website.

Direct link to the paper draft can be found at:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HFE_v2_at_27_and_54_4_Au_Au_Collisions_v1.pdf

Direct link to the analysis note can be found at:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_27_54_note_v1.pdf

Your comments and suggestions are highly welcome.

Regards,
Yuanjing for PAs

On 2021-05-28 11:20, Yuanjing Ji via Star-hf-l wrote:

Hi all,

Please find the first paper draft for Heavy flavor

electron v2

at 27

and 54 GeV at:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HFE_v2_at_27_and_54_4_Au_Au_Collisions_v1.pdf

The analysis note:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_27_54_note_v1.pdf

The website:
https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/jiyj/NPEweb

Comments and suggestions are highly welcome.

Best
Yuanjing
_______________________________________________
Star-hf-l mailing list
Star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hf-l

Links:
------
[1]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!R8oGSQDkKyRP8Nr3lKLpwz-g4GQ3pLDDq4jojdWDyyU5Od3KAgiWnTvqPDwWtXyhfd7UCw$

[2]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!R8oGSQDkKyRP8Nr3lKLpwz-g4GQ3pLDDq4jojdWDyyU5Od3KAgiWnTvqPDwWtXwmrY0RGw$

--

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 [3]

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov

Links:
------
[1]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!SHoPUkAroUXpplM9UoZS7T-vBuDFWwcVfvEj6qYQuQDFVyJa_6vJIFsNaZdWueqQc0VW2w$

[2]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!SHoPUkAroUXpplM9UoZS7T-vBuDFWwcVfvEj6qYQuQDFVyJa_6vJIFsNaZdWueowX1H0RA$

[3] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473

_______________________________________________
Star-hf-l mailing list
Star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hf-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 [3]

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov

Links:
------
[1]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Dy85I7zYJiBApJwougq4Yms7x7UxbPWgOqlUuqYCul3Ty7Igsc4_MBnmOH2JAKBS4Jz3oQkphHR1_u80qXHbuXh9DS-ogBc17g$

[2]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Dy85I7zYJiBApJwougq4Yms7x7UxbPWgOqlUuqYCul3Ty7Igsc4_MBnmOH2JAKBS4Jz3oQkphHR1_u80qXHbuXh9DS9DilU-Ig$

[3] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473

--

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 [3]

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov

Links:
------
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DRFvzo1GrVrxPHz3iDNXNBBnaJHDFC04SYjGrhkwIncVYvW-4v1rJ5DgylRxbbRhG4QlP0UTnqcjBAGfyr1ufI9Tyn3QUklMGQ$
[2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DRFvzo1GrVrxPHz3iDNXNBBnaJHDFC04SYjGrhkwIncVYvW-4v1rJ5DgylRxbbRhG4QlP0UTnqcjBAGfyr1ufI9Tyn0gGQR4rA$
[3] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473

Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] low energy NPE v2 paper, Barbara Trzeciak, 10/04/2022
- Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] low energy NPE v2 paper, Sooraj Radhakrishnan, 10/05/2022
  - Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] low energy NPE v2 paper, Yuanjing Ji, 10/11/2022
    - Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] low energy NPE v2 paper, Sooraj Radhakrishnan, 10/14/2022
      - Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] low energy NPE v2 paper, Barbara Trzeciak, 10/17/2022