STAR HardProbes PWG

["Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT)" <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>]

Dear Conveners,

Please find the corrected version of preliminary request slides here.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/SQM_PrelimReq_V3.pdf

Corrections made on:

1. S35: Typo on bin 5 has been corrected.
2. S47: D0 inv mass with purity plots are replaced (prev plots were from Run 2016) with correct ones
3. Considering the correct purity values (which are used for systematic calculations and pair-purity corrections), issue mentioned by Isaac is now well understood.
   
   

Please let me know if you have any further comments.

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 6:36 PM
To: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>; Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>; webmaster AT star.bnl.gov <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for SQM-2024 got commented by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury

 

Hi Priyanka,

I just have one comment on the preliminary request and one comment on the talk. With these addressed I sign off on both.

Thanks,

Isaac

Preliminary request:

I have a question or two about the mass window uncertainty. First, on s. 35, I assume the row for Bin no. 5 has a typo, and it should be \sigma_syst = 0.01, right, since \sigma_mass is bigger? But more importantly, in s. 46 and 47 we see that there is a large impact on the D0 signal purity when switching between M0 +- \sigma and M0 +- 2\sigma. I don't understand then why s. 50 and 51 seem to show no noticeable difference on the D0-p results (with the exception maybe of the k* = 0.23 bin) between these two choices and no noticeable difference in the size of the purity correction (comparing black and red markers within each panel). Am I missing something? Shouldn't the purity correction be larger for the M0 +- 2\sigma case where the purity is worse?

Slides:

12. I was confused by the second bullet for a few minutes. I believe you mean between 0.7 and 1 GeV, the TOF info is required. But it reads as if you mean that without TOF info we are unable to do PID at e.g. 0.3 GeV, but there we have good separation in dE/dx. It would be good to be clear about the exact ranges where you require TOF matching for pions and kaons here and on s. 8, and either change the range from everything < 1 GeV/c, or change the language to “To help distinguish…TOF info was used."

On May 31, 2024, at 11:55, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Nihar and Yi,

Thanks a lot for your valuable suggestions and sorry for the delay in getting back.

Please find the updated version here https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/SQM24_Priyanka_V2.pdf

Changes made:

1. Aspect ratio changed from 4:3 to 16:9 as requested by the organizing committee
2. S7 (now S6): here main physics message would be "strong interaction at hadronic phase is very small according to small scattering length (~ 0) observed by ALICE". Our analysis is also focusing on studying final state strong interaction and we can fix interaction parameter to the L-L fit model to achieve emission source size with high precision (mentioned this on S38 of prelim fig req slides)
3. S15, 16, 17 (now, S17, 18, 19): we don't have any prediction calculated for radii > 5 fm and as current results don't have enough statistical precision, we can't decisively conclude that source size would be equal to 5 fm
4. Added an extra slide mentioned data set and selection criteria where I clearly mentioned about number of good events analysed. Also, mention mentioned that number of events on result slides (S17, 18, 19)
5. Typos in Eq. (2) are corrected
6. S2: Bullet 3 shows the conclusion from the observation mentioned on bullet 2 (connection b/w charm and QGP)
7. PID slide (S12) is not much time consuming, so I am keeping this
8. Plots (D0-p & D0-pi) are modified to improve the aesthetics
9. We don't know any theory prediction for D0-p channels, I will mention that during presentation
   
   
   
   

Preliminary req. with updated plots is here  https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/SQM_PrelimReq_V2.pdf

Please let me know if you have further questions and comments.

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 2:55 PM
To: STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>; webmaster AT star.bnl.gov <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for SQM-2024 got commented by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury

 

Hello Priyanka,

Please find a few comments on your nice slides from:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/SQM24_Priyanka_V1.pdf

Slide7: you discuss about scattering length from ALICE measurement, do 
you have plan to calculate the same from STAR data? You need to link 
Slide7 message with your analysis too, if you want to motivate.

Slide15,16: STAR data shows -> STAR data show ;
emission source size of 5 fm or larger -> how do you know "larger" case?

Plots on Slide 15,16,17: you need to mention inside the plot "[x% of 
2014 data used]".
I recall you have not used full statistics. So better to mention in this 
preliminary results what is that "x"?

With these implemented, I sign off.

Thank you
Nihar


On 2024-05-27 16:36, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) via Star-hp-l wrote:
> Dear conveners,
> 
>  This is a gentle reminder for reviewing my slides. Please let me know
> your valuable comments and suggestions in order to improve my
> presentation.
> 
>  Regards,
>  Priyanka
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> From: Star-hp-l <star-hp-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of
> webmaster--- via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 1:38 AM
> To: Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov <Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> Cc: webmaster AT star.bnl.gov <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
> Subject: [Star-hp-l] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for
> SQM-2024 got commented by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury
> 
> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> 
> Priyanka Roy Chowdhury ( priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl ) has
> commented on a material originally submitted by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury
> (
> priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl ) at
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/SQM-2024/Heavy-flavor-femtoscopy-AuAu-collisions-%E2%88%9AsNN-200-GeV-STAR-0
> 
> Comment:
> Dear Conveners,
> 
> The modified version (V1) content the final figures (2 of those are
> waiting
> for approval) along with some required changes. The older version (V0)
> is now
> deleted.
> 
> Regards,
> Priyanka
> 
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
> _______________________________________________
> 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