STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[egroker <egroker1 AT gmail.com>]

Dear conveners,

Thank you very much for your response and comments.
I created a blog with preliminary results and a presentation with analysis details. 
It looks like I don't have rights for adding link to my slides on drupal preliminary table, so I'm asking you to add my link: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/alpatov/preliminary-plots-global-polarization-hyperons-27-gev
I understand your concerns about systematic uncertainties at centrality dependence and will look for the way of improving analysis to make it more precisive.

I implemented all the corrections proposed by Prithwish, so please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Egor_Global_Polarization_ICPPA_v4.pdf

Thank you,
Egor Alpatov

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:47 PM Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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