STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

On 2021-02-20 17:33, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Dear Prabhupada
> You did change the v2{Minv} fitting function in the new Fig.1
> right-bottom panel. Now I do not see the fluctuation in the function,
> so that you now use the functional shape in stead of the function
> given by data points? Are they same data?
>
> If you do not overlay two data and models in one panel, I would
> also choose the same pT-axis range with vertical grid lines, as I
> mentioned earlier, not just vertical v2-axis range and horizontal
> grid lines.
> Best regards, ShinIchi
>
> > On Feb 20, 2021, at 18:33, pdixit <pdixit AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-02-18 09:22, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > > Dear Prabhupada
> > > Thanks for the very nice proceeding, I would sign off with some minor 
> > > comments
> > > for you to consider in the followings.
> > > L58 : comma “,” just before the “so”.
> > > L77(and Fig.2) : It looks like you used the data points as a part of
> > > the fitting function,
> > > which is good, I would just like to suggest you to include the Minv
> > > distribution
> > > (without subtraction) overlaid with normalized mixed BG, just above
> > > the v2(Minv)
> > > plot with exactly the same x axis (the same Minv region) and to state
> > > S,B in the
> > > fitting function are given by data points (therefore the fitted line
> > > includes the
> > > statistical fluctuation from the S and B).
> > > Fig.4 : Since you always present 27 and 54 GeV data separately, I 
> > > would overlay
> > > them at lease once, which could be done in this Fig.4, or at least, 
> > > to
> > > have them
> > > separately as it is now, but choose exactly the same x-y scale of the
> > > figure and
> > > add the grid lines in the figure, since I would also like to see the
> > > comparison between
> > > two energies, for both data and ampt. Why did you choose to use 3mb
> > > (default value
> > > in ampt)?, where I remember data are better described with somewhat
> > > larger partonic
> > > cross section at lease for higher energies.
> > > Best regards, ShinIchi
> > > > On Feb 9, 2021, at 3:10, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l 
> > > > <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 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/53631
> > > > ---
> > > > 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
> > Hi ShinIchi,
> > Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I have tried to 
> > modify the figures as you suggested. Please have a look at them in the 
> > link given below.
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/proceedig_V2.pdf
> > And as you mentioned that the data is better described by higher 
> > partonic cross-section in AMPT. In that case, maybe the true reaction 
> > plane is used in the model. But in our case, we did not use the 
> > reaction plane in our model calculation. We have constructed the event 
> > plane in the model as we do in data. In the latter case, 3mb is 
> > describing the data of 54.4GeV well. For 27 GeV (AMPT 3mb fails to 
> > explain) we will try to tune some other parameters and cross-sections 
> > in AMPT in the future.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Prabhupada
>
> _______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
Dear ShinIchi,
 I have not changed the fitting function in Fig-1 and I am using the 
functional form of the fitting function from the beginning also. The 
fluctuation in Fig-1 before is due to the plotting problem in ROOT. Now 
I have made it correct. I found that directly drawing the fitting 
function after fitting gave unwanted noise in the shape but when I saved 
the function in the root file and plotted it separately the function 
became smooth.
I have made the changes in the plot of AMPT comparison of two energies 
by scaling both the X and Y axis and making grinding both horizontally 
and vertically.
link to the modified proceeding: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/proceeding_V3_0.pdf

Thank You,
Prabhupada