STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Qian,

I was traveling for the past two weeks, sorry for the late replies. 

I missed some discussions, apologize if I asked something repeatedly. 

 - p9: Does the acceptance and efficiency depend on rho_00? Here you assume rho_00 is 1/3, will it bias your results? 

 - p10: what is the y-axis label "l-ract."? 

 - p11: could you please show the sizes of uncertainties from each source, instead of just showing the sources? 

 - p11: Any event plane uncertainty should be included here? 

 - p13 and p14: If simply adding all the points from the left, I would expect to have a smaller deviation from 0. Could you please remind me why the systematics is much smaller in the 0-80% bin? 

 - p15: legend: isobar -->ZrZr+RuRu

Cheers,

Yi

 

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 4:38 AM tc88qy via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Yi and Isaac

Just a remind, that the SPIN2023 conference will start in 3 days.
Can you send out your comments?

Thanks
Qian Yang
On 2023-09-22 16:34, tc88qy via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Hello Nihar,
>
> Sure, we can have more details discussion after the conference.
>
> Qian Yang
>
> On 2023-09-22 15:10, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>> Hello Qian,
>>
>> Thank you for updating those figures.
>> After going through your slide16-17, I think we need to revisit the
>> extraction of fitting parameter and its error again for final
>> publication. Please remind us on this point after the conference to
>> have a discussion on it.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Nihar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2023-09-22 12:13, tc88qy wrote:
>>> Hello Nihar,
>>>
>>>   I have updated the plots. Thanks for your sign-off.
>>>
>>> Qian Yang
>>>
>>> On 2023-09-22 13:13, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>>>> Hello Qian,
>>>>
>>>> Could you include all your fitting plots like in SLide12 for all
>>>> centralities in your preliminary request?
>>>> That probably we have not seen and we missed.
>>>> It is important for our future discussion after the conference.
>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>> Nihar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-09-22 10:04, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>> Hello Qina,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find my reply inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-09-21 19:52, tc88qy wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Nihar,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  STAR released ZDC first-order EP results at QM. People may ask do
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> have a comparison
>>>>>> between first-order EP and second-order EP. That the reason we did
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> comparison.
>>>>>> We can keep in mind that they do have difference just as you and
>>>>>> Subhash motioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> I look at your preliminary request:
>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
>>>>> You have probably removed that comparison plots. Is not it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, your preliminary request looks fine to me.
>>>>> With these, I sing off.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't have further question, can I understand it as an
>>>>>> sign-off?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Subhash
>>>>>> Thanks for pointing to the paper
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-09-21 16:40, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Qian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you addressing my comments. All your responses are fine to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One follow up on your this reply.
>>>>>>>>>>  2.I just talking about the data, error bars can touch each
>>>>>>>>>> other by
>>>>>>>>>> using "TPC 2nd order EP" and "ZDC 1st order EP".
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Not clear.
>>>>>>>>  Actually, Do you have any physics expectation to the comparison
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> the 1st order EP have such large error bars?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you look at my earlier comment copied here. Probably, my
>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>> comment was not clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. On Slide 4, My expectation that "TPC 2nd order EP" and
>>>>>>>>>>> "ZDC 1st
>>>>>>>>>>> order EP" may give a bit different results. But you quote
>>>>>>>>>>> "Results are
>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with each other due to large error bars in first
>>>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>>>> measurement". It sounds like using different Detectors ( TPC
>>>>>>>>>>> vs. EPD)
>>>>>>>>>>> and EP order (1st vs 2nd) results are still consistent. Is
>>>>>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>>>>>> want to say?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I want say is, if we use different detectors (central vs.
>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>> acceptance) and also different (1st vs 2nd) order EP to calculate
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> J/psi spin alignment then do we expect the results would be the
>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> or not?
>>>>>>> My expectation: it may not give the same because using TPC and
>>>>>>> ZDC
>>>>>>> detector have different correlation to acceptance region. And
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> different order EP could be another factor.
>>>>>>> But you quote "Results are consistent ..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to know your comment on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-09-21 13:00, tc88qy wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello Nihar,
>>>>>>>>    Please find my reply inline.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-20 18:16, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello Qian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please find my reply inline.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-20 14:56, tc88qy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Barbara and Nihar
>>>>>>>>>>   I included 0-5% centrality to the first bin in the
>>>>>>>>>> preliminary
>>>>>>>>>> request plots. The results have been updated in the
>>>>>>>>>> preliminary
>>>>>>>>>> request plots. Please look at the it in this link:
>>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Nihar
>>>>>>>>>>  1.Just as I mentioned in previous email. We should look at a
>>>>>>>>>> centrality range with clear physics information.
>>>>>>>>> How do you know what is _clear physics_?
>>>>>>>> we probably need to think about the physics information we want
>>>>>>>> to look at.
>>>>>>>> In our case, it is the charm and anti-charm correlation that
>>>>>>>> affecting by QGP.
>>>>>>>> In most the Au+Au analysis, STAR paper then talk about QGP in a
>>>>>>>> centrality of 0-60% or 0-50%, just like the phi spin alignment
>>>>>>>> paper
>>>>>>>> are carry out at 20-60%. 20-50% or 20-60% centrality is what
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> usually look at for QGP related study.
>>>>>>>> In peripheral collision, the case could very different from
>>>>>>>> central
>>>>>>>> and semi-central collision.
>>>>>>>> I think it would be good to using 0-20%, 20-50% and 50-80%
>>>>>>>> centrality bins.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  2.I just talking about the data, error bars can touch each
>>>>>>>>>> other by
>>>>>>>>>> using "TPC 2nd order EP" and "ZDC 1st order EP".
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Not clear.
>>>>>>>>  Actually, Do you have any physics expectation to the comparison
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> the 1st order EP have such large error bars?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  3. done
>>>>>>>>>>  4. The rho_00 central value in 50-80% is on top of 1/3. While
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> looking at the pT dependence of the same centrality,
>>>>>>>>>>     every data points central value is above 1/3. This is
>>>>>>>>>> inconsistency and related to yield extraction method.
>>>>>>>>>>  5. will done in the talk
>>>>>>>>> Please include in your preliminary request also.
>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  6. Please check in the preliminary request plot
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please find additional comment on your preliminary request:
>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) Slide13-14: "Centrality Integral" data point, the plotting
>>>>>>>>> style is
>>>>>>>>> incorrect because of X-axis.
>>>>>>>>> I suggest to use the style of plotting in Fig.2 of Uplsilon PRL
>>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>> https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.112301
>>>>>>>> This is the first time I know that we have style requirement for
>>>>>>>> Physics plots.
>>>>>>>> I have update it in the same link.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) Slide 15: "global spin alignment signal mainly from the pT
>>>>>>>>> range 1-3 GeV/c"
>>>>>>>>>    Do you mean you only use 1-3 gev/c range only for centrality
>>>>>>>>> dependence plot like fig. in SLide13,14?
>>>>>>>>>    If so, why don't you consider 3-4 gev/c range?
>>>>>>>> In each plots, I updated it with a legend to mention the pT and
>>>>>>>> y
>>>>>>>> range we used in the analysis.
>>>>>>>> And after discuss with fcv group, we decide not show the pT
>>>>>>>> dependence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3) Do you have plan to show both Fig.1 and Fig,2 outside as
>>>>>>>>> STAR preliminary?
>>>>>>>>>    I am wondering because Fig.2 shows there may be a centrality
>>>>>>>>> dependence, other hand Fig.1 shows fluctuations across
>>>>>>>>> centralities
>>>>>>>>> and also contradicts the earlier.
>>>>>>>> Yes, we plan to show both. Fig 1. just show people the signal
>>>>>>>> over centralities.
>>>>>>>> In figure 2, We do not say there is a centrality dependence.
>>>>>>>> We emphasize the centrality range we selected.
>>>>>>>> 0-20% with the largest J/psi regeneration probability.
>>>>>>>> 20-50%, QGP with largest angle momentum or particle v2.
>>>>>>>> 50-80%, a reference
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-20 15:51, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Qian,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My apologies, for my late response.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please find my comments on your preliminary request.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. On Slide3 "Centrality binning", I would prefer to use
>>>>>>>>>>> 0-20%,
>>>>>>>>>>> 20-40%, and 40-80% binning. Let me know what do you think. As
>>>>>>>>>>> is done
>>>>>>>>>>> in Slide4 right side figure with STAR preliminary.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. On Slide 4, My expectation that "TPC 2nd order EP" and
>>>>>>>>>>> "ZDC 1st
>>>>>>>>>>> order EP" may give a bit different results. But you quote
>>>>>>>>>>> "Results are
>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with each other due to large error bars in first
>>>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>>>> measurement". It sounds like using different Detectors ( TPC
>>>>>>>>>>> vs. EPD)
>>>>>>>>>>> and EP order (1st vs 2nd) results are still consistent. Is
>>>>>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>>>>>> want to say?
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Slide5 left fig: I think you need to include 0-20% instead
>>>>>>>>>>> of 5-20%
>>>>>>>>>>> centrality for pT-dependence plot. Is not it? [same for
>>>>>>>>>>> Slide7]
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Slide5: "ρ00 systematic above 1/3 in pT dependence study
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> 50-80%…" -> But it looks all are consistent with 1/3 (dotted
>>>>>>>>>>> line)
>>>>>>>>>>> within uncertainty except 2-3 GeV/c pT bin (just ~1 sigma
>>>>>>>>>>> difference).
>>>>>>>>>>> Is not that?
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. SLide8: Please Include ALICE reference.
>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Please include also Physics message/conclusion on Slide
>>>>>>>>>>> 6,7,8.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-20 11:39, Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have strong preference about the 40, 50 or 60%, you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can leave
>>>>>>>>>>>> it as you had, 20-50 and 50-80%.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The main point was about not excluding the 0-5% range.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So from my side it's fine. But please wait if conveners have
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>> comments on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Sept 2023, 07:55 tc88qy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last centrality bin will have large error bar as shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> binning study.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about 50-80%, it will reduce the error bars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also checked the 50-80% <N_part> in Isobar, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 60-80% <N_part> in Au+Au.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-20 12:51, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's also fine. My only worry is that you will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncertainty for the pT different rho00 in this bin. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> check.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Sept 2023, 05:39 tc88qy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see your point. I agree to include 0-5% centrality to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we do 20-40% and 40-80% centrality, the last bin do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precisions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we probably need to think about the physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look at. In our case, it is the charm and anti-charm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correlation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affecting by QGP. In most the Au+Au analysis, STAR paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QGP in a centrality of 0-60%, just like the phi spin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alignment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry out at 20-60%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I suggest we do the binning of 0-20% , 20-60% and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 60-80%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-19 23:39, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for point to the slides with additional checks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding 0-5% centrality bin:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As ShinIch also commented, sometimes the most central
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bin is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to poor event plane resolution. However, in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resolution being particularly bad, it's not so much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mid-central case. If we have enough confidence to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the centrality differential plot, I don't see a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include it when you integrate to wider centrality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ranges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the other binning:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The reason for having 20-40% and 40-80% is that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid-central point is almost the same while the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peripheral bin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gains in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> precision compare to the 50-80% centrality range.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Sept 2023, 17:21 tc88qy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I replied to the HP list for the comments I got from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find the details in this link:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230917.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of the binning, I am not sure the reason of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20-40%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-19 22:15, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that you consider three centrality classes on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plots on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14-16 - same as you presented last week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed in more detail at the previous HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit weird (and I don't know what's the motivation in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you exclude 0-5% centrality bin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest having the first bin as 0-20% centrality,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20-40%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 40-80%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, could you please prepare a comparison to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first order event plane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:36 AM tc88qy via Star-hp-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find my preliminary plots request in link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l