STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

Dear Xiaoyu
I would also sign off your nice slide. 
Best regards, ShinIchi

> On Oct 24, 2020, at 8:47, Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l 
> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hello Xiaoyu,
>  Please consider the following comments for nice slides -- with these 
> included I sign off.
> 
> General comment:
> I wonder if it's ok to just say "v1" instead of "vn" everywhere.
> 
> slide #2:
> "Extracting flow from" --> "Flow measurement using"
> 
> slide#3:
> "detector consist" --> "detector that consists"
> "EPD acceptance" --> "EPD acceptance (2.1<|η|<5.1)"
> 
> If you are thinking about vertex then you can write below the figure:
> 
> "EPD acceptance is 2.1<|η|<5.1 but depends on the position of collision 
> vertex"
> 
> In order to make what you refer to as "fraction" I think you have to say
> "Although the number of particles in not counted directly"
> -->
> "Although the number of particles hitting a tile is not counted directly"
> 
> slide #4:
> "they come from physics"
> -->
> "they depend on incident particle distribution"
> 
> slide #4:
> The line starting with "Multi-MIP peaks" is kind of repeating what is 
> already said on this slide above -- but I leave this to you.
> 
> slide#4, figure:
> I don't what's the best way to label these figures, maybe "STAR 
> performance" or "STAR preliminary" -- I would try one of those and get 
> suggestions from Takafumi.
> 
> 
> slide#5:
> I would start this slide by saying
> "We divide η and φ-acceptance into ** and ** no of bins
> respectively"
> 
> slide#5:
> You have introduced Ψ1 on this slide which is not defined. You have write 
> the details of how Ψ1 was estimated.
> 
> Add a bullet:
> "We will consider the relative angle of a hit w.r.to first order event 
> plane Ψ1 in the event"
> 
> slide#5 figure:
> Add a caption: "Averaged nMIP distribution for a single η-φ bin"
> 
> slide#6 figure:
> Δφ is not defined, if it is φ-Ψ1 then I would just write so or define it 
> somewhere.
> 
> slide#6:
> "to get the dN/dφ:" --> "to get:"
> 
> slide#7, the last line:
> I would assume you will add more details about event plane -- there you can 
> also mention about how event plane resolution was estimated.
> 
> slide#7, right figure:
> This definitely needs more labels, like:
> "Au+Au 27 GeV", "STAR Performance"
> 
> If you have confusion and you don't intend to show any data I suggest you 
> get rid of slide#7. But then move bullet #4 to page 6 and add:
> "with this v1 can be estimated by fitting Fourier decomposition"
> 
> 
> slide#8:
> "All the primary vertex (PV) are at the original point"
> -->
> "Primary vertex (PV) position is set to Vx,Vy,Vz=(0,0,0)"
> 
> slide#9:
> please add inside all plots
> "Au+Au 27 GeV, UrQMD"
> 
> slide#9:
> "limit EPD resolution"
> -->
> "limited EPD resolution"
> 
> slide#10:
> In the outlook you can add "We plan to apply this method on data and 
> measure v1(η) at forward η"
> 
> 
> Best,
> Prithwish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2020-10-23 17:27, Liu, Xiaoyu via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>> Hello Shinichi,
>> Yes, it is what I did with the UrQMD + EPD Fast Simulator study as
>> shown in P9. It shows that the nMIP fitting method is able to count
>> the number of particles properly (flow measurement is essentially
>> counting dN/dphi).
>> I will consider the ADC cut in the GSTAR study, it is a very good
>> point and thank you for the suggestion!
>> If you are okay with my DNP slides, could you please sign off my talk
>> so it can be sent to STAR talk?
>> Thanks,
>> Xiaoyu
>> -------------------------
>> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of
>> ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 12:37 AM
>> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Xiaoyu Liu for DNP 2020
>> submitted for review
>> Dear Xiaoyu
>> Thank you very much for the replacement of the figures.
>> About the ADC cut, since you are ignoring amplitude information in the
>> geant
>> simulation just to count the number of particle per tile in the
>> simulation, while
>> you are effectively excluding pedestal noise and small ADC part below
>> nMip<0.3
>> etc in your experimental fitting method. So I just wanted to make sure
>> you are not
>> counting particle, if the ADC is quite small in your simulation, this
>> is to make it
>> as same as the experimental treatment.
>> Since there is no reason why not to believe the ADC distribution in
>> the simulation,
>> therefore I was thinking this would be a good test ground for your
>> nMip fitting to
>> see how well you can count the number of particle by using the ADC
>> distribution,
>> which you might have already done with the fast Epd simulator, but
>> this provides
>> the more realistic ADC distribution coming from the dE/dx and photon
>> statistics
>> with the true geometry including BG hits in the geant simulation,
>> where we could
>> even include electronics noise to make reasonable pedestal peak, if we
>> like to,
>> where we know the truth and measured ADC.
>> However your earlier test with UrQMD and fast simulator might include
>> already
>> the most of effects, though. Do I understand you correctly for your
>> fast simulator
>> with UrQMD, you overlay the extracted “measured” single MIP ADC
>> distributions
>> according to the number of tracks in a tile and then apply your nMip
>> fitting to
>> decompose the average number of track from the overlaid ADC
>> distribution using
>> the same single shape, which should give the same answer in principle
>> by
>> definition? This is what you are showing in p9 for your DNP talk?
>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>> On Oct 23, 2020, at 7:46, Liu, Xiaoyu <liu.6566 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Hello Shinichi,
>>> Thanks for your suggestions. I updated my DNP slides with the new
>> UrQMD plots (P9: 16 variable eta bins instead of 10 even eta bins) and
>> the new version can be found at the same link:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/dnp-2020/vn-measurement-auau-sqrtsnn-27-gev-event-plane-detector-star-1__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA7wVyqEjl$
>> [1]
>>> For the v1 focus meeting, here is my slides:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/v1_meeting_102020_0.pdf__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA7x0vfjo9$
>> [2]
>>> If you are asking about the comparison between dN/deta of the
>> simulated EPD hits (blue points on P5) and the dN/deta in the EPD
>> acceptance extracted from the nMIP distribution with the real data,
>> then I don't have it but I can make one later.
>>> I didn't use any ADC cut and I am not sure if it is needed. Even the
>> ADC is very small, the signal is still created by some particle
>> hitting the EPD tile therefore it should be counted. The small value
>> is just due to the Landau fluctuation.
>>> I am not sure if I understand your last suggestion. Do you mean for
>> each EPD tile, I can measure the number of primary particles
>> (generated particles) hitting the tile and the number of "simulated
>> particles" (EPD hits after going through the STAR material simulation)
>> hitting the tile? What do you want to learn from it?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Xiaoyu
>>> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of
>> ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 10:34 PM
>>> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Xiaoyu Liu for DNP
>> 2020 submitted for review
>>> Dear Xiaoyu
>>> Thank you, that makes sense. This would mean we should not plot the
>> results
>>> with too small eta bins even for the input values to be compared
>> with output values.
>>> On the other hand, in the real event we do have quite a large
>> z-vertex variation,
>>> so eta average of each tile in each event are different, so one
>> could still plot a little
>>> finer bins in eta, if we like to, so we need to think about the
>> optimal size of the
>>> eta bin. I’m fine with your nice talk for DNP.
>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>> PS : So the v1 vs eta in UrQMD and our data are quite different,
>> which could be
>>> reasonable, because of the poor description of spectators. Do you
>> also have a
>>> comparison of dN/deta between them?
>>> PPS : Sorry to ask you additional questions on your another
>> presentation in v1
>>> focus meeting yesterday, where you were just binary counting hits in
>> each tile of
>>> EPD to get measured v1 in MC, which is indeed reasonable, but did
>> you exclude
>>> hits below the value of 0.5*ADC for one mip, that need to be applied
>> after
>>> integrating all hits ADC values per tile in each HI event?
>>> Since you do have 2 ADC distributions for each tile and for both one
>> mip (one
>>> particle event) and multi-mips (overlaid many single events)
>> including landau
>>> and photon statistical fluctuation in addition to the real increase
>> of the number
>>> of particles between the two, therefore you could also apply your
>> nMip fitting
>>> method to see how well you can reconstruct the true “increase
>> of” average
>>> number of particle per tile in the MC, which is a kind of good test
>> ground of
>>> your approach and would also gives us the systematic error as well.
>> You might
>>> need to have some constrained fitting of these two simultaneously,
>> where they
>>> would have some common parameters in the function or do the fitting
>> of the
>>> multi-mip data with a convoluted "data" function from the single-mip
>> distribution.
>>>> On Oct 22, 2020, at 1:44, Liu, Xiaoyu
>> <liu.6566 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu> wrote:
>>>> Hello Shinichi,
>>>> Attached are the UrQMD + EPD fast simulator study with 16 variable
>> eta bins (corresponding to 16 EPD rings). The black points and red
>> points are almost on top of each other. So the discrepancy at large
>> |eta| on my slide 5 is indeed due to the fact that the innermost ring
>> covers two eta bins.
>>>> Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or comments.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Xiaoyu
>>>> From: Liu, Xiaoyu <liu.6566 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 8:07 PM
>>>> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; ShinIchi Esumi
>> <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Xiaoyu Liu for DNP
>> 2020 submitted for review
>>>> Hello Shinichi,
>>>> Thank you for your comments and sorry I didn't show the results at
>> recent BulkCorr meetings. As you mentioned, for this talk, I just want
>> to focus on introducing the new method and the v1, v2 plots are indeed
>> unnecessary for this purpose so I deleted them.
>>>> About the UrQMD study, I used the full Au+Au UrQMD events, not the
>> particle gun if it is what you are asking. And they are just UrQMD
>> events w/o going through any simulation for the STAR materials.
>>>> I believe the discrepancy in large |𝜂| is due to the fact that
>> the inner-most ring covers two largest 𝜂 bins therefore EPD cannot
>> tell exactly which 𝜂 bin the hit belongs to. So v1_EPDhit
>> (4.8<|𝜂 |<5.1) = v1_EPDhit (4.5<|𝜂 |<4.8) and they are all
>> between v1_track (4.8<|𝜂 |<5.1) and v1_track (4.5<|𝜂 |<4.8). As
>> for the bin 4.2<|𝜂 |<4.5, part of it falls on ring 1 and part of it
>> falls on ring 2 so the v1_EPDhit(4.2<|𝜂 |<4.5) will be pulled
>> either towards the bin on the left or the bin on the right therefore
>> v1_EPDhit(4.2<|𝜂 |<4.5) is smaller than v1_track (4.2<|𝜂 |<4.5)
>> which is the peak of v1. In other words, if I plot the same plot with
>> the x-axis bins being the 16 EPD rings instead of 10 even 𝜂 bins in
>> [2.1,5.1], the red points and the black points are expected to be on
>> top of each other. I can make the plot and show you later.
>>>> Sorry again for not discussing the results at BulkCorr earlier.
>> Hope it will be okay if I only show the UrQMD results in this talk. I
>> can present the UrQMD study in this week's FCV meeting if needed.
>>>> I uploaded the second version under the same link:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/dnp-2020/vn-measurement-auau-sqrtsnn-27-gev-event-plane-detector-star-1__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA7wVyqEjl$
>> [1]
>>>> Please let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Xiaoyu
>>>> From: Liu, Xiaoyu <liu.6566 AT buckeyemail.osu.edu>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 7:32 PM
>>>> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; ShinIchi Esumi
>> <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Xiaoyu Liu for DNP
>> 2020 submitted for review
>>>> Hello Jiangyong,
>>>> Thank you for your comments, I implemented most of them except:
>>>> P3: I did use a random point on the tile to determine the \eta of a
>> hit EPD tile.
>>>> P5: I changed the "the number of 1-, 2-, k-...MIP events per
>> collision" to "the fraction....". The reason why I didn't use
>> "probability" is that it is only the probability when we fit the
>> dN/dnMIP of one tile, in which case the integral of the dN/dnMIP
>> distribution over nMIP is 1. However, if we look at the dN/dnMIP of
>> several tiles then the integral of the distribution will be larger
>> than 1 and the sum of the 1, 2, 3, 4-MIP weights might be larger than
>> 1 too and the word "probability" can be misleading. Then I realized
>> the word "number" can be equally misleading since people would expect
>> the number of events to be integers. Therefore, I chose "fraction" and
>> hopefully it is less confusing.
>>>> P9: The data points are not mirrored around y=0, they do look very
>> similar though.
>>>> Besides, I decided to delete the v1 before the resolution
>> correction with the real data as Shinichi suggested since I want to
>> focus on the new method and these plots are not essential for this
>> purpose.
>>>> I uploaded the second version to the same link:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/dnp-2020/vn-measurement-auau-sqrtsnn-27-gev-event-plane-detector-star-1__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA7wVyqEjl$
>> [1]
>>>> Please let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Xiaoyu
>>>> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of
>> ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 11:54 PM
>>>> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Xiaoyu Liu for DNP
>> 2020 submitted for review
>>>> Dear Xiaoyu
>>>> I could sign off your nice talk, but you have not discussed this in
>> the
>>>> PWG yet, so it would be nice that you could have shown us before.
>>>> P7-8 : The statistical errors are invisible, but do you know why
>> the difference
>>>> between track(pure sim) and hit(including geant) is suddenly
>> increasing at
>>>> |eta|>4. Are they a strong detector effect from a large dE/dx from
>> spectator?
>>>> You use the true R.P. angle for both cases, is this geant
>> simulation done
>>>> taking a full AuAu event of UrQMD or taking a single track from the
>> UrQMD
>>>> event one by one?
>>>> P9-10 : Do you like your data plots to be approved as preliminary
>> even with
>>>> the uncorrected data? (for E.P. resolution and BG and detector
>> effects)
>>>> If you insist to show these, I would at least label them more
>> clearly that this
>>>> is uncorrected for many possible other effects, not just for R.P.
>> resolution)
>>>> If you like to explain your analysis methods in detail, you would
>> not need to
>>>> use the experimental data, but can be done more with UrQMD data. It
>> seems
>>>> we do see a strong spectator contributions in both v1 and v2 (and
>> most-likely
>>>> in dN/deta distribution as well) in data, but you can not really
>> defend what
>>>> this is just with uncorrected data, so I wonder what we can say
>> with these
>>>> plots.
>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>> On Oct 18, 2020, at 10:55, Jiangyong Jia via Star-fcv-l
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>> Hi, xiaoyu,
>>>>> Here is my comments for sign off
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> Jiangyong
>>>>> P1: please add "for the STAR Collaboration" and only keep your
>> name
>>>>> P2: For outline consider avoiding technical terms such as "nMIP"
>> and StEpdFastSim in
>>>>> P4: I would swap the order the two sub-bullet of the nMIP
>>>>> P5: Fit to extract "the probability of 1-2..k-MIP events" in bin j
>>>>> P6: please indicate the AuAu 27 GeV on this figure and also other
>> figures where appropriate.
>>>>> resolution correction --> correct for the event plane resolution
>>>>> P7: StEpdFastSim--> EPD fast simulation
>>>>> same format as in the STAR offline data.
>>>>> a random point on the tile--> do you mean the center of the tile?
>>>>> P8: ring one--> the inner-most ring
>>>>> to correct for the measurement-->to account for residual detector
>> effects
>>>>> The plots have been symmetrized around y=0, if so please indicate
>> that
>>>>> P10: please add some statement on this slide
>>>>> Plots on P8-P10 should have proper x- and y-axis labels
>>>>> P11: we developed a new method
>>>>> On 10/15/20 11:53 AM, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>> members,
>>>>>> Xiaoyu Liu (
>>>>>> liu.6566 AT osu.edu
>>>>>> ) has submitted a material for a review, please
>>>>>> have a look:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52381__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA79SUGDt9$
>> [3]
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA70xW2PJx$
>> [4]
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Star-fcv-l mailing list
>>>>> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA70xW2PJx$
>> [4]
>>>> <Picture1.pdf>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Star-fcv-l mailing list
>> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA70xW2PJx$
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/dnp-2020/vn-measurement-auau-sqrtsnn-27-gev-event-plane-detector-star-1__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA7wVyqEjl$
>> [2] 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/v1_meeting_102020_0.pdf__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA7x0vfjo9$
>> [3] 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52381__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA79SUGDt9$
>> [4] 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l__;!!KGKeukY!iKVEEHuNtXLuV0-0rSjZyf03Az7r3Z7cvjJDVlcnem5EyFvehk9xHAI2rqgfK9PvGkwA70xW2PJx$
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature