STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Niseem
Thank you very much. 
I do see the asymmetric signal in “in-plane (red)” in the left panels of the 
first 3 pages, 
but I do see the asymmetric signal in “DSp (black)” in the right panels of 
the next 3 pages, 
I thought you expect signal in “DS”, not in “DSp”, or am I wrong? That’s why 
I’ve asked 
whether they are wrongly plotted in these p4-p6 of the attached file or not. 
Or did you mean 
“in-plane” to be “DS” or “DSp” ? Your final signal R ~ C(DS)/C(DSp) is mostly 
negatively 
shifted, therefore your signal should be in the numarator DS (in-plane), but 
if you say DSp 
does have negative asymmetry, then R needs to be positively shifted, so your 
R definition 
would be opposite. Please clarify between in-plane and out-of-plane as well 
as between 
DS and DSp, in addition to your R definition. Thank you very much. 
Best regards, ShinIchi  

> On Apr 17, 2021, at 17:22, Niseem via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi ShinIchi,
> 
> (1) I’m surprised to see the scaling factors between data and model are so 
> similar.
> What kind of experimental effect did you take in to account in your model 
> calc,
> especially in terms of acceptance and efficiencies etc? I would think you 
> need to
> adjust something in order to make the shuffled width to be the same between 
> them,
> because it would be mostly driven by the number of particles. Similar 
> adjustment
> would be needed/feasible for having the resolution to be similar, or? Could 
> you tell
> us what you have done for this?
> 
> >> Just used the same experimental cut "\eta and pT" please note AMPT is 
> >> expected to fit the data v2 and spectra.
>  Note that those events are not my events, they have been given to us by 
> the model author.
> 
> 
> (2) Why did you choose here to show the model with 3% case, where the 
> signal is
> about an order of magnitude larger than data and you do have 2% case, where 
> the
> signal is much smaller and closer to the data.
> 
> >> You asked for some comparisons without any request on the signal.
> Therefore I just chose the one that you can see easily the effect.
> The 2% case is attached in the file now.
> 
> 
> (3) Is mixed DS distribution exactly symmetric between positive and 
> negative DS
> region for both DS and DSp cases? Have you confirmed this by overlaying the
> positive/negative flipped same distribution?
> 
> >> This is confirmed via fitting them and looking into the mean value which 
> >> is about -5.0e-05
> 
> 
> (4) The same question on the out-of-plane DS distribution (DSp 
> distribution), it is
> symmetric with respect to positive/negative flipping? It looks like this is 
> the case
> for both data and model, when I look at your first two pages of the 
> attached file,
> however the next two pages do look strange, please make sure what you are
> plotting in p3 and p4. Left/right panels do look same in p3 and left/right 
> panels
> seem to be flipped? Since I see the signal only in out-of-plane (DSp) for 
> AMPT, or?
> 
> >> When I fit the mix-dist the mean value is about -5.0e-05 for in and out
> >> The same is plotted just different dist on top of each other. I think it 
> >> is only how we plotting them.
> 
> 
> 
> (5) Does the out-of-plane ratio C(DSp) have to be symmetric between positive
> and negative regions? It does look like more or less the case in p5 and p6, 
> however
> out-of-plane data does seem to show somewhat opposite asymmetry compared
> to the in-plane case at least in the experimental data, is this what you 
> would expect?
> This is not really clear in the model, maybe because of the statistics. But 
> I would
> assume you know the answer since you must have played with the model to 
> include
> some experimental effects and/or physics effects etc, or?
> 
> >> We are not doing any symmetrization here.
> Out-of-plane could have some small asymmetry from the background that is 
> not included in the model.
> Finally please note that this is a spatial case of the AMPT (I do not have 
> the model to play with) which is published by the model authors. Recently 
> an independent work was published in the Rn for CMW 
> [https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00839__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Vf-hWgRRdyUrCP5YFu4R82NlsN6RAScQzHt3w12oDlaQ4sWIO5bt7-xSHgnN8pPEUWFZl88i$
>  ]
> 
> 
> >>Finlay, The meeting starts today please let me know if you are fine with 
> >>my talk.
> 
> 
> Niseem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/17/21 2:29 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>> Dear Niseem
>> Thank you for the comparison plots.
>> 
>> (1) I’m surprised to see the scaling factors between data and model are so 
>> similar.
>> What kind of experimental effect did you take in to account in your model 
>> calc,
>> especially in terms of acceptance and efficiencies etc? I would think you 
>> need to
>> adjust something in order to make the shuffled width to be the same 
>> between them,
>> because it would be mostly driven by the number of particles. Similar 
>> adjustment
>> would be needed/feasible for having the resolution to be similar, or? 
>> Could you tell
>> us what you have done for this?
>> 
>> (2) Why did you choose here to show the model with 3% case, where the 
>> signal is
>> about an order of magnitude larger than data and you do have 2% case, 
>> where the
>> signal is much smaller and closer to the data.
>> 
>> (3) Is mixed DS distribution exactly symmetric between positive and 
>> negative DS
>> region for both DS and DSp cases? Have you confirmed this by overlaying the
>> positive/negative flipped same distribution?
>> 
>> (4) The same question on the out-of-plane DS distribution (DSp 
>> distribution), it is
>> symmetric with respect to positive/negative flipping? It looks like this 
>> is the case
>> for both data and model, when I look at your first two pages of the 
>> attached file,
>> however the next two pages do look strange, please make sure what you are
>> plotting in p3 and p4. Left/right panels do look same in p3 and left/right 
>> panels
>> seem to be flipped? Since I see the signal only in out-of-plane (DSp) for 
>> AMPT, or?
>> 
>> (5) Does the out-of-plane ratio C(DSp) have to be symmetric between 
>> positive
>> and negative regions? It does look like more or less the case in p5 and 
>> p6, however
>> out-of-plane data does seem to show somewhat opposite asymmetry compared
>> to the in-plane case at least in the experimental data, is this what you 
>> would expect?
>> This is not really clear in the model, maybe because of the statistics. 
>> But I would
>> assume you know the answer since you must have played with the model to 
>> include
>> some experimental effects and/or physics effects etc, or?
>> 
>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>> 
>>> On Apr 17, 2021, at 11:44, Niseem via Star-fcv-l 
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear ShinIchi,
>>> 
>>> As I stated early the AMPT work is published anyone can use it as it's 
>>> from the paper. If you want I can remake Fig.1 to separate the data from 
>>> the AMPT.
>>>  With that being stated, I expanded my slides to include step-by-step 
>>> plots from AMPT as well as the scaling factors. I hope this good for the 
>>> time.
>>> 
>>> It's okay to ask we all want to understand the physics in a good way :)
>>> See the updated file attached.
>>> 
>>> Niseem
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/16/21 6:44 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>> Dear Niseem
>>>> I understood your situation, one can do limited things in a limited time.
>>>> Since you are comparing your data with the AMPT to argue about physics
>>>> implication, therefore I would still like to see them (data and model) 
>>>> side by side
>>>> in each step of your analysis, especially you say “S -> S’ -> S” is just 
>>>> the scaling
>>>> on R, which is done separately between them, so I would guess the 
>>>> scaling factors
>>>> are different between them, so the scaling would directly impact on your 
>>>> comparison.
>>>> If you do have everything in your analysis note on the experimental data 
>>>> and also all
>>>> the information on the model in your published paper, you could collect 
>>>> them all
>>>> these necessary plots/tables from the different places to show in one 
>>>> place, and
>>>> try to convince us your data-model comparison is indeed reasonable or 
>>>> not.
>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 17, 2021, at 7:06, Niseem via Star-fcv-l 
>>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi ShinIchi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> For make it clear the slides I sent some slides to answer some of your 
>>>>> points. I'm doing only the 10-30 which I will present in the APS.
>>>>> AMPT is published and I sent the 2-papers before.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Could you overlay 2 or 4 data sets from p19 in one plot (A),
>>>>> and show their relation to p20 in (B), then to p21 in (C),
>>>>> for both data and ampt side-by-side : (A,B,C) 3 plots x 2 case?
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> this will be found at my slides sent today.
>>>>> and for a few centrality cases and a few q2 selections? : 3 plots x 
>>>>> (3+3) cases?
>>>>> Maybe also for a few pT windows as you did in p12?    : 3 plots x 3 
>>>>> cases?
>>>>> And also for a few <Ach> window as you did in p16?   : 3 plots x 3 
>>>>> cases?
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I will sent those after the meeting
>>>>> And I would also like to see the analysis steps
>>>>> S -> S’ -> S” for both data and ampt                            : 3 
>>>>> plots x 3 cases?
>>>>>>> No steps we just scale the x-axis the numbers are provided in my 
>>>>>>> slides sent today.
>>>>> I hope this help,
>>>>> Niseem
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 4/16/21 12:59 PM, Niseem via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>> Hi ShinIchi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for your email!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As you know life is not very start all the time so I do my best to get 
>>>>>> some of what you asked for.
>>>>>> Please find attached the plots for 10-30 central Au+Au at 200 GeV. 
>>>>>> This is related to what I will show at the APS.
>>>>>> When I have more time (since I'm changing house those days) I will 
>>>>>> send you more info as you asked.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Niseem
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 4/16/21 11:23 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Niseem
>>>>>>> I do not see any of the supporting analysis plots of your results 
>>>>>>> here yet that you’ve promised…
>>>>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 2021, at 17:21, Niseem via Star-fcv-l 
>>>>>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>> Please find the page for the preliminary-plots at this link,
>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/niseem/preliminary-plots-quadrupole-charge-separation
>>>>>>>> Thanks, Niseem
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> From: Niseem via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Niseem Magdy 
>>>>>>>> Abdelwahab Abdelrahman for APS April Meeting 2021 submitted for 
>>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>> Date: April 15, 2021 16:57:15 JST
>>>>>>>> To: ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: Niseem <niseemmagdy AT yahoo.com>, "STAR Flow, Chirality and 
>>>>>>>> Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear ShinIchi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So sorry I did not see this email before.
>>>>>>>> I can do that in fast way for the normal R_2. I will need more time 
>>>>>>>> to create all of the requested plots.
>>>>>>>> I will work on that now and hope to send you some plots very soon.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Niseem
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/21 2:25 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear Niseem
>>>>>>>>> I was hoping at least to see some of the answers to my earlier 
>>>>>>>>> questions/requests
>>>>>>>>> (attached below) to your pwg presentation last week before 
>>>>>>>>> approving your plots as
>>>>>>>>> preliminary for the APS presentation, but I did not see the 
>>>>>>>>> answers, maybe I’ve missed?
>>>>>>>>> I remember you have mentioned that you would be indicating your 
>>>>>>>>> previous presentation
>>>>>>>>> and analysis notes for the possible answers that you could 
>>>>>>>>> point-out. I would also think
>>>>>>>>> the step-by-step guidance of your analysis and correction 
>>>>>>>>> procedures would also be
>>>>>>>>> appreciated and useful in the conference like APS, since people 
>>>>>>>>> like to see what you
>>>>>>>>> really did.
>>>>>>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> From: ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 7/Apr/2021 Wed. 
>>>>>>>>>> 9:30AM at BNL
>>>>>>>>>> Date: April 8, 2021 1:39:00 JST
>>>>>>>>>> To: "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" 
>>>>>>>>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Niseem
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the correct link in the chat window :
>>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/niseem/quadrupole-charge-separation-measurements-auau-collisions-implications-chiral-magnetic-w
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the plots in our backup slides.
>>>>>>>>>> Could you overlay 2 or 4 data sets from p19 in one plot (A),
>>>>>>>>>> and show their relation to p20 in (B), then to p21 in (C),
>>>>>>>>>> for both data and ampt side-by-side : (A,B,C) 3 plots x 2 case?
>>>>>>>>>> and for a few centrality cases and a few q2 selections? : 3 plots 
>>>>>>>>>> x (3+3) cases?
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe also for a few pT windows as you did in p12? : 3 plots x 3 
>>>>>>>>>> cases?
>>>>>>>>>> And also for a few <Ach> window as you did in p16? : 3 plots x 3 
>>>>>>>>>> cases?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And I would also like to see the analysis steps
>>>>>>>>>> S -> S’ -> S” for both data and ampt                            : 
>>>>>>>>>> 3 plots x 3 cases?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry to ask you too much, though.
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to see these plots in order to understand the 
>>>>>>>>>> analysis better,
>>>>>>>>>> which could also be helpful (or even used) for your APS/DNP talk?
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/21 3:05 AM, Niseem via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Prithwish,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your nice comments, please find my updated slides at the 
>>>>>>>>> same link
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/aps-april-meeting-2021/characterization-quadrupole-charge-separation-200-gev-implicati
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> slide#7 Mention how centrality was done.
>>>>>>>>> I did not understand what you mean do i need to say that we do 
>>>>>>>>> centrality by cutting on multiplicity?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For the AMPT data I'm using the a published plots which i added 
>>>>>>>>> reference to it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Niseem
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/21 4:01 PM, Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello Niseem,
>>>>>>>>>>   The slides look good. I have a few comments -- with these 
>>>>>>>>>> included I sign off.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Since you have new preliminary results please follow the STAR 
>>>>>>>>>> policy of making a page (if you haven't done so yet). Regarding 
>>>>>>>>>> the model plots, I would also request you to make the AMPT data 
>>>>>>>>>> available on RCF somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> General comments:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. I think we need to make a point that this analysis is promising 
>>>>>>>>>> and still in the exploratory phase as we need more time to explore 
>>>>>>>>>> the sensitivity to different background scenarios. Maybe some help 
>>>>>>>>>> from the theorists would be welcome. Also, isobar data may help to 
>>>>>>>>>> establish the efficacy of the observable. It would be great if you 
>>>>>>>>>> can add a few comments along these lines.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Please make sure not only every plot but each panel has a label 
>>>>>>>>>> saying either "STAR Preliminary" or "AMPT".
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Put more details about the AMPT model on the slides. In 
>>>>>>>>>> particular, the version, link to publications wherever applicable.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Specific comments on the slides:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> slide#4: "Prior/ongoing" --> "Prior"
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  "make more discerning" --> "make a discerning"
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> slide#6: You need to define what "f" (or "f_q") is.
>>>>>>>>>> What is the value of "f" on lower right plot ?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> slide#7 "Run-11 data" --> "data from year 2011"
>>>>>>>>>> Mention how centrality was done.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> slide #8:
>>>>>>>>>> "The correlator response in " --> "The correlator response to" 
>>>>>>>>>> (this sounds better)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> slide#9: Put the centrality for AMPT on this plot.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Slide#10:
>>>>>>>>>> Somewhere on this slide you need to put a quantitative statement. 
>>>>>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>>>>> "Variation of q_2 leading to ~30% variation of v_2 in 10-30% 
>>>>>>>>>> centrality does not lead to any significant variation of R_{Ψ2}" ?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Slide#11:
>>>>>>>>>> Left plot inset requires more labels for x and y axes.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Slide#12:
>>>>>>>>>> This is the best place to put the comment on the exploratory 
>>>>>>>>>> nature of this study and add that more model  studies on 
>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity to background underway after the last bullet.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Prithwish
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-04-10 15:53, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Niseem Magdy Abdelwahab Abdelrahman (niseemmagdy AT yahoo.com) has 
>>>>>>>>>>> submitted a
>>>>>>>>>>> material for a review, please have a look:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/54618
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>> <Niseem_cmw_for_pwg.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>> 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
> <Niseem_cmw_for_pwg.pdf>_______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l