STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Shengli Huang <shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu>]

Dear Niseem,

    I do not see saturation from your CuAu study for Nch<200 where the statistical fluctuation will be large:

https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/niseem/pwg_2020/Flow_PT_2.pdf

    If deta>0.2 methods are similar to two-subevent methods as jiangyong mentioned, then there must be a statistical fluctuation for deta>0.2, since two-subevent eta gap is much larger than 0.2 by average!

    The ck is not a purely dynamical fluctuation from your deta cut methods!

Thanks!

Shengli

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:05 AM niseem <niseem AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> 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



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