STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Tongzhou Guo <tongzhou.guo AT stonybrook.edu>]

Dear ShinIchi 

Really thanks for your previous questions, they're very helpful for the improvement of my slides.

I've done some updates, please find my slides at the same link

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/aps-april-meeting-2021/energy-and-centrality-dependence-forward-backward-transverse-mo

I believe this is still far from complete. Questions and comments are very welcomed.

Best regards,

Tongzhou

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:29 PM Tongzhou Guo <tongzhou.guo AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Thanks for your questions!

(1). That's right. Actually, the number of events are different between two energy levels, and I'll update the plots and mark the number of events. Otherwise the statistical errors are not meaningful.

(2). Right, the top-middle panel in p5 is a part of the same data in p8. Their statistical errors are the same, but due to the marker size, this is not very clear. Maybe I should modify the marker size for p5 because it's too big. Yes, I should include systematics for all plots. To make a comparison with the results for 27 GeV, I also exclude the high multiplicity regions for 54 GeV results. The number of events of high multiplicity region is not enough for 27 GeV, so that the statistical error bars are very long for this region and the average value of the pearson coefficient is meaningless.

(3). Yes, I should learn more on the reasons for the crossing effect of 27 GeV, as well as the proper selection to describe centralities. 

In total, I'll delete some plots and add more physical discussions and update my slides soon.

Best regards,

Tongzhou 

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:40 PM ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Tongzhou
Thank you for the interesting results, I have a few questions.
Are you request preliminary for all these plots in the slides for APS meeting?

(1) The statistical errors should be given by the number of events, not the total
number of tracks, right? Does the used event statistics reflect the size of the
statistical errors between 54 and 27GeV data? What are the number of events
used for these 2 data sets?

(2) The top-middle panel in p5 is a part of same data in p8, right, where you
have excluded the central events, because of some experimental problems,
like pile-up etc? Do they have same statical errors on the both pages? If you
have already systematic error estimation, why don’t you include in other pages?
Do you have convincing reason how you have decided to exclude the high
multiplicity region?

(3) The trends for two energies are similar, but the different eta gaps approach
at higher multiplicity for 54GeV, but they cross for 27GeV, do you know why?
You have used RefMult in the PWG, which is now shown as Nch, are they
same number? What if you plot and compare them as a function of centrality?

Best regards, ShinIchi

> On Apr 14, 2021, at 8:32, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>
> Tongzhou Guo (tongzhou.guo AT stonybrook.edu) has submitted a material for a 
> review, please have a look:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/54656
>
> ---
> 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