STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[egroker <egroker1 AT gmail.com>]

Dear conveners,

I have updated my presentation in correspond with today's meeting
Please have a look by this link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Egor_Global_Polarization_ICPPA_v3.pdf

Thanks,
Egor Alpatov

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM egroker <egroker1 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shinichi,
Thank you for your comments.

1. To stay consistent with Takafumi results, I separated Xi and Xi->Lambda results  Asymmetry appears from that fact, that I've got for now only two sources of systematics, and mostly this points (main difference come from BBC, as I shown few times at presentations before) are higher than my main values. So it was decided to make this systematics asymmetric, because at least for now we don't see much systematic results lower than main.
That difference between EPD and BBC is the topic that I wanted to bring up again at the upcoming FCV meeting to discuss. 

2. I'm using a "number of particles" weighting scheme. Technically, I just have got a separate TProfiles for each centrality bin with value after all scalings. At the end of calculations I just Add these profiles to each other.

3. I added Joey's results on the Centrality dependence plot, please have a look at new version:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Egor_Global_Polarization_ICPPA_v2_0.pdf
Other variant of this plot could be found on the last slide "Work in progress"

Thanks,
Egor Alpatov

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 7:47 AM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Egoe
Thanks for the nice presentation of this new results. I have a few questions.

On p10, I would like to know why only some of the points does have quite asymmetric systematic error?
And why for the most of your cases, the points are at the lower edge of the systematic error? While on the
energy dependence comparison plots on the right panel, the previous data points sit mostly on the opposite
edge of the systematic band...

The difference of the statistical errors between the two methods Xi and Xi->Lambda would be mostly
coming from the alpha parameters, that is about a factor of two, where I do see it for points at about 10-40%,
which is not really the case for the averaged points on the right panel, that could be caused by the other effects
like the e.p. resolution etc… I just like to make sure how you average the data for 20-50%, the inverse error
square weighing or number of particle and/or event weighting?

Since joey has also shown the centrality dependence of Lambda case in the last QM, so I would like to have
a comparison to your left panel as well.
Best regards, ShinIchi

> On Sep 26, 2020, at 2:18, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Egor Alpatov (egroker1 AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for a review, 
> please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52202
>
> ---
> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact 
> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l

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