STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Prabhupada
Do you have a better plot of v2(Minv), where you do see a visible difference 
in v2 between signal and combinatorial? A peak or dip in some other pT or 
centrality selections? I do not mean this method is bad, but it’s just more 
convincing, if one sees a dip or a peak around the phi mass region...
Best regards, ShinIchi

> 2020/12/09 9:44、ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>のメール:
> 
> Dear Prabhupada
> I’ve been seeing a reasonable agreement between you and the one from 
> Shaowei 
> in the E-mail discussions. If the previous preliminary shown in the last QM 
> is consistent 
> with your analysis within the statistical and systematic errors, we do not 
> have to 
> update/modify the previous results, what you are showing now in this slide 
> is then 
> the one from the previous preliminary? or new results? You mentioned in the 
> reply to 
> Jiangyong’s E-mail, you seem to exclude systematic errors in one of the 
> companion 
> plots, however the comparison to the models or other data should always 
> include the 
> both statistical and systematic errors. There are some exceptions where you 
> can 
> exclude one of them, when you are comparing the exact same data sets or in 
> case 
> some systematics would cancel etc...
> Best regards, ShinIchi
> 
>> 2020/12/09 3:07、pdixit via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>のメール:
>> 
>> On 2020-12-08 21:41, Jiangyong Jia via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>> HI, Prabhupada
>>> Just a few comments on your nice talk.
>>> 1 Please add slide number
>>> 2 slide 9 show the results from EPD and TPC are consistent within 10%.
>>> Are you quoting that as the systematic uncertainties?
>>> 3 You do not indicate which method you use for v2 measurement.
>>> 4 slide 10 and 12 should include systetematic uncertatinties for v2
>>> measurements and for the EP resolution (even if they are small they
>>> should be included)
>>> Jiangyong
>>> On 12/8/20 12:06 AM, pdixit via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>> On 2020-12-03 23:13, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>> Prabhupada Dixit (prabhupadad AT iiserbpr.ac.in) has submitted a
>>>>> material for a
>>>>> review, please have a look:
>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/52968
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 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
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> This is a gentle reminder to review my presentation. The conference is
>>>> on 14th December so I would like to request all to give your comments
>>>> and suggestion early.
>>>> Thanks and regards
>>>> Prabhupada Dixit
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> Hi Jiangyong,
>> Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions.
>> 1. I have added the slide number.
>> 
>> 2.slide 9 show the results from EPD and TPC are consistent within 10%. Are 
>> you quoting that as the systematic uncertainties?
>> - No, we are not quoting that as systematic uncertainty. Those two results 
>> are from different run and the event plane used there are also from 
>> different detectors. We have just compared both the results in this slide.
>> 
>> 3.You do not indicate which method you use for v2 measurement.
>> - We have used invariant mass method here. I have updated the slide with 
>> this information.
>> 
>> 4. slide 10 and 12 should include systematic uncertainties for v2 
>> measurements and for the EP resolution (even if they are small they should 
>> be included)
>> - The v2 for 54GeV is already STAR Preliminary in QM-19 (by Shaowei Lan) 
>> which does not have systematic uncertainty. As suggested by Prithwish and 
>> ShinIchi in FCV-PWG group meeting we are showing that result.
>> In slide-12 we have also removed systematic error bar from 27GeV since we 
>> are showing v2 for both the energies side by side this will look odd if 
>> one has extra systematic error bar and one has not.
>> 
>> link to updated slide: 
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DAE_HEP_Talk_version_1.pdf
>> Please suggest if any other changes required.
>> 
>> Thanks and regards
>> Prabhupada Dixit.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Star-fcv-l mailing list
>> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
>