SciPost Submission Page
Non-zero transverse single spin asymmetry of very forward $\pi^0$ in polarized $p + p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 510$ GeV
by M. H. Kim for the RHICf Collaboration
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Minho Kim |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202108_00002v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2021-08-02 09:25 |
| Submitted by: | Kim, Minho |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 28th Annual Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering (DIS) and Related Subjects (DIS2021) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Experimental |
Abstract
The RHICf experiment measured transverse single spin asymmetry of very forward ($\eta > 6$) $\pi^0$ from polarized $p + p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 510$ GeV. In order to measure it precisely, we installed a new electromagnetic calorimeter at zero-degree area of the STAR experiment at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and measured the $\pi^0$s over the kinematic range of $x_F > 0.25$ and $0 < p_T < 1$ GeV/$c$ in June, 2017. A clear non-zero asymmetry was observed even in low $p_T < 1$ GeV$c$ showing a similar $x_F$ dependence with the forward ($2 < \eta < 4$) $\pi^0$ ones. A possible diffractive contribution may need to be taken into account to explain the very forward $\pi^0$ asymmetry. RHICf-STAR combined analysis and follow-up experiment will give a clue to understand it qualitatively.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2022-2-28 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202108_00002v1, delivered 2022-02-28, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.4555
Report
This paper, "Non-zero transverse single spin asymmetry of very forward π^0 in polarized p + p collisions at sqrt-s = 510 GeV" describes a measurement of the transverse single spin asymmetry in very forward π^0's. The experimental apparatus is well described for a paper of this type, and the description of the data analysis is appreciated and illuminating. The results presented are mostly clearly laid out and should be published in this journal.
However there are several comments that should be addressed before this manuscript can be published in this journal.
There are several quantities that are introduced but not defined when they are first used, namely \beta^*, x_F, and p_T. I also find Fig. 4 to be a bit hard to read, specifically the label. Making this figure larger could significantly improve the readability of the figure. Finally it would be appreciated if the authors could take a closer look at the grammar used in the manuscript. In several spots throughout the document there are errors that make parsing individual sentences difficult, most notably in the first two sections.