STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[pdixit <pdixit AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

On 2020-12-09 06:21, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
Hi ShinIchi,
Thanks for your comments.
1. I have updated the v2(Minv) plot with a better one.
2. You have asked whether we are showing the previous preliminary result 
or new. The answer is YES, we are showing the previous preliminary 
result for v2 at 54GeV. The only new one is v2 at 27GeV using EPD event 
plane.
3. As you suggested we have put the systematic error bar in the model 
comparison plot.

the link the modified slide is
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DAE_HEP_Talk_version_2.pdf

Thanks and regards
Prabhupada Dixit