Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-fcv-l - Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Egor Alpatov for ICPPA-2020 submitted for review

star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • To: egroker <egroker1 AT gmail.com>, "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Egor Alpatov for ICPPA-2020 submitted for review
  • Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 15:47:17 -0400

Hello Egor,
Please consider the following comments on your nice slides. With these included, I sign off your talk.

Comments on v3 of the talk at: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52202

slide#2, consider a revision of this sentence:
"The Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) appearing in non-central
nuclear-nuclear collisions is generated with large orbital
angular momentum"
-->
"The Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) formed in non-central
nuclear-nuclear collisions is associated with large orbital
angular momentum, that leads to vorticity in the medium"


slide #2:
"Spin-orbit coupling aligns spin directions of produced
particles with system angular momentum, known as
vorticity"
-->
"Spin-orbit coupling aligns spin of produced
particles with the direction of vorticity"

slide #4:
"decay parameter, individual for each hyperon species"
-->
"decay parameter, unique for each hyperon species"

slide #4, consider a revision of this sentence:
"It could be calculated with spectator’s
signal, as it’s resolution (𝑅𝑒𝑠(ψ1))"
-->
"Ψ1 and it's resolution (𝑅𝑒𝑠(ψ1)) can be calculated
measuring spectator’s signal"

slide #5, the following sentence is not correct:
"Nowadays the global polarization was measured only for
Λ and Λ-bar, which are mostly products of other particles"

I suggest we change it to something like this:
-->
"Nowadays, there is a growing interest to measure the global polarization
of Λ and Λ-bar produced from the decay of other particles such as Ξ"


slide #7 & elsewhere:
"calculation(s)" --> "measurement(s)"
"calculated" --> "measured"


slide #7:
"calculated using BBC and EPD"
-->
"calculated using BBCs and EPDs"


slide #8:
"Used topologic of decays "
-->
"Used topology of the decays"

slide #9, put "Au+Au 27 GeV, 30-40%" & "STAR preliminary" on the left figure.

slide #10, more details will be helpful, for example:
1. You're showing two sets of points for Ξ. Please make it clear, what is the difference between two methods for Ξ polarization measurements?
2. Mention the details of the parameters (decay and polarization transfer) that were used for this measurement.
3. Modify the labels on the right figure on slide #10 to clearly specify which ones are for Λ and Ξ.

slide #10, regarding the statement:
"Ξ polarization slightly increases with centrality"
The trend is not obvious given the uncertainty, I suggest we say:
"Weak centrality dependence of Ξ polarization within uncertainties"

slide #11, the following sentence is not clear
"New results are comparable with Λ polarization studies"
We can write:
-->
"Ξ polarization is comparable to Λ polarization at 27 GeV within uncertainties"


Best,
Prithwish



On 2020-10-01 11:18, egroker via Star-fcv-l wrote:
Dear conveners,

Please send me your comments for this presentation if there are any.
If there are no comments, I'm looking for your approval for this talk.

Thanks,
Egor Alpatov

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:56 PM egroker <egroker1 AT gmail.com> wrote:

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page