STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Prabhupada
Thanks for the explanation, so it was good to correct the function. 
Thanks also for the figure scales, which tells us data are comparable 
while the models are different between energies. As I’ve already signed off, 
so if Jiangyong or Prithwish is OK, you can go to the star talk. 
Best regards, ShinIchi

> 2021/02/22 0:16、pdixit <pdixit AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>のメール:
> 
> 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
>