STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Jiangyong Jia <jiangyong.jia AT stonybrook.edu>]

On 10/22/20 12:05 AM, niseem via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear Shengli and All,
>
> I agree with ShinIchi about using one set of data points for now.
> However, I disagree with your concern about the Delta eta cut. I did
> preset it in detail in the pwg meeting and I showed that the cut
> effect saturates at some point if its statistical fluctuations affect
> the Ck value will keep changeing with the D-eta cut.
>
> Thanks,
> Niseem
>
Shengli and Niseem,

For preliminary result, it probably is ok.

The statistical uncertainty on ck is negligible for Pearson correlator
(which is dominated by the covariance). the ck value itself agrees well
with subevent method

In my opinion, it is sufficient to show the 200 GeV result from Chunjian
and 27 and 54 GeV from Niseem, this is a good compromise.  Further
investigation on the statistical uncertainty of ck can be followed up later.

Cheers,

Jiangyong

>
>
> On 2020-10-21 22:54, Shengli Huang via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>      I also have the same concern. STAR only allows one version of
>> preliminary for one data set. We can change it or update it but only
>> one version is allowed to exist.  We can not show two kinds of
>> preliminary in the same conference even the cuts are different.
>>      I also have the concern for eta gap cut for ck for Niseem's
>> results. This eta gap cut will generate non-zero statistical
>> fluctuations. So the signal will include both dynamics fluctuations
>> and statistical fluctuations. It does not make sense.  We should make
>> sure the statistical fluctuation to be zero is ck!
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Shengli
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:42 PM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Niseem (and Chunjian)
>>> So both of you would need this 1- and 3- sub comparison plot in your
>>> backup,
>>> if you two are using the different cuts at the end for the different
>>> comparisons
>>> in these two talks focusing on the somewhat different topics with
>>> the same variable,
>>> which would be reasonable. But after all, if you decide to use the
>>> same cuts/selections
>>> for both talks, I think it would be better to use the same data
>>> points (just for 200GeV
>>> AuAu points) between the two talks, if that is indeed consistent
>>> between the two with
>>> the same cuts, one can use the one of them for both talks? I thought
>>> this would be
>>> the rule for the preliminary, since we approve the data points, or?
>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>
>>>> On Oct 21, 2020, at 8:51, niseem <niseem AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear ShinIchi,
>>>>
>>>>>> Please find the comparison attached, Niseem’s results are
>>> using 3-subevents Chunjiang’s results A is 3-subevents and B is
>>> 1-subevents
>>>>
>>>> Dear Niseem (and Chunjian)
>>>> I heard that you (Niseem) have made the change on your cuts (in
>>> order to make it exactly same as Chunjiang’s cuts) for all your
>>> plots including other beam energy points. Is that true?
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, all results are reproduced with the same cuts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However I still see them qualitatively different between your plot
>>> on P11 lower-right panel AuAu 200GeV data and Chunjian’s plot on
>>> P9 left panel in his slide. We would just like to see them overlaid
>>> in the same panel with the same x-y axis definition, as they could
>>> have some differences depending on the choice of the normalization
>>> or some other different cuts/selections.
>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that in Niseem’s slides only 3-subevents are used,
>>> however in Chunjian’s plot on P9 1-subevent being used. We update
>>> the plot to compare 1- and 3-subevents between Niseem and Chunjian.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is good to see them consistent after making the same
>>> choice/selection, however it is also important to understand and
>>> demonstrate how different they are with these different cuts as
>>> well, which is just like showing the delta_eta dependence of your
>>> results.
>>>>
>>>>>> The delta eta dependence is a separate question. But right now,
>>> we choose to use the same delta eta cut. As you can see with the
>>> same delta eta cut the difference is too small and covered by the
>>> systematics. The analysis is not based on the same code and exactly
>>> the same procedure
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Niseem
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:33, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>> Dear Niseem (and Chunjian)
>>>>> I heard that you (Niseem) have made the change on your cuts (in
>>> order to make
>>>>> it exactly same as Chunjiang’s cuts) for all your plots
>>> including other beam
>>>>> energy points. Is that true? However I still see them
>>> qualitatively
>>>>> different between
>>>>> your plot on P11 lower-right panel AuAu 200GeV data and
>>> Chunjian’s plot on P9
>>>>> left panel in his slide. We would just like to see them overlaid
>>> in
>>>>> the same panel with
>>>>> the same x-y axis definition, as they could have some differences
>>> depending on
>>>>> the choice of the normalization or some other different
>>>>> cuts/selections. It is good to
>>>>> see them consistent after making the same choice/selection,
>>> however it is also
>>>>> important to understand and demonstrate how different they are
>>> with
>>>>> these different
>>>>> cuts as well, which is just like showing the delta_eta dependence
>>> of
>>>>> your results.
>>>>> I do think they are needed to make both your talks approved.
>>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2020, at 1:33, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>> I’m asking you to show both comparisons with and without
>>> adjusting the cuts.
>>>>>> The comparison without adjusting cuts means the direct
>>> comparison between
>>>>>> the two preliminary results (with different cuts), which will be
>>> shown in the DNP.
>>>>>> The comparison with the same cut has already been shown in the
>>> PWG.
>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2020, at 18:42, Niseem via Star-fcv-l
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi ShinIchi,
>>>>>>> I and Chunjiang used the same method and cuts to get the same
>>> results.
>>>>>>> Please find the updated slides at the same link.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/dnp-2020/beam-energy-dependence-flow-correlations-heavy-ion-collisions
>>
>>>>>>> The comparisons between my results and Chunjiang's results are
>>> in the backup slides.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Niseem
>>>>>>> On 10/17/20 11:04 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear Niseem (and Chunjiang)
>>>>>>>> I would sing-off your nice talk with some comments.
>>>>>>>> Please have a comparison plot in your backup between you and
>>> Chunjiang with the
>>>>>>>> same data set 200GeV AuAu, one with your own choice of
>>> analysis cut (especially for
>>>>>>>> delta_eta and sub-event cuts on covariance and two variances)
>>> as well as another one
>>>>>>>> with a common set of eta_gap and sub-event cuts for both of
>>> the analysis.
>>>>>>>> After you prepare the preliminary summary page with all your
>>> preliminary plots to be linked
>>>>>>>> at special drupal area for the preliminary location with
>>> necessary information at :
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/bulk-correlations/bulkcorr-preliminary-summary
>>
>>>>>>>> then I would approve your talk.
>>>>>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2020, at 1:15, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>>>>> Niseem Magdy Abdelwahab Abdelrahman (niseemmagdy AT yahoo.com)
>>> has submitted a
>>>>>>>>> material for a review, please have a look:
>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52367
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Niseem Magdy Abdelrahman, Ph.D.,
>>>>>>> Postdoctoral Research Associate
>>>>>>> Department of Physics
>>>>>>> University of Illinois at Chicago
>>>>>>> 2236 Science and Engineering South
>>>>>>> 845 West Taylor Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> <Comp_AB.pdf>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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