STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Niseem

Thanks for the update and understandings. We agree. 

If your R is defined as "DS/DS_P" as you show in p5, you divide by 

the signal (the shifted correlation), so this is type-II that has the same 

positive slope as in the experimental data in p6?

Best Regards, ShinIchi

On Apr 18, 2021, at 4:01, Niseem via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear ShinIchi,

Thanks for your great help :)

The updated slides are at the same link,

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/aps-april-meeting-2021/characterization-quadrupole-charge-separation-200-gev-implicati

Thank you, yes indeed, your final R has been positively shifted (positive slope),
where I was confused between DS and DS_P, also between C and R, I’m very
sorry about my earlier dumb questions. By the way, why did you define R like
this, where the signal is in the denominator, one would usually define the
correlator with the signal term in the numarator like DS_P/DS (in/out), or?

>>I appreciate your help and effort in try to improve the process. Please feel free to ask what you like if I can not address them now I will do that as soon as I can. We just try to maintain the same definition for the d=1 and 2 cases.


You did confirm that the mixed distributions were found to be symmetric, while
it was not really clear what you expect on the out-of-plane (DS) distribution,
at least a clear asymmetry is not seen in the model. The q2 independence
and Ach dependence of the measured signal would be the main message of
your APS talk, which is also consistent with earlier CMW measurements, right?

>>Yes, however, we are not making any conclusions about the CMW, we just report the observation and pointing out that this is an ongoing effort.

I’m signing off your talk provided with the other convener’s and member’s
agreements. My final comments on your nice slides are :

“d” is fixed to “2” in your analysis for this CMW measurement, so please indicate
somewhere “d=2” especially in p5 and p12, where you use (d) in the formula.

>>d=2 updated for p5 and p12


Please also indicate the AMPT in the left figure in p6 does show the type-II signal
(blue points) shown in the right figure. I would also have mixed distributions in the
upper panels of the left figures as well.

>> I think its Type-1 dominates. In AMPT they mix type-1 and 2 but with 1-dominates. I added Type-1 dominates to the slide.
>> I do not have this distribution handy now since I moved most of my files to HPSS. I used the same plot as in the published paper.


In your future PWG presentation, we would like to see more detailed comparison
as a function of centrality and q2 dependence with C(DS) and R(DS) plots
including DS -> DS’ -> DS” steps. Especially for Ach dependence, only the final
slope of R(DS”) are presented without detailed C(DS) and R(DS) plots, so please
show them all as well.

>> I will keep that in mind for my next PWG presentation

I would also show DS distributions and C(DS) correlations in addition to the R(DS) in this kind of talk like APS to explain more detailed
experimental analysis steps, but you have not requested them as preliminaries to be shown, so never mind.

>> I will keep that in mind for my next talk, please note that it is 10min talk.


Did you present what Aihong was asking you during the PWG?
>> I just found the email in my draft did not sent to the CME-group "I mad the plots he asked for" I will sent it now.

Thanks,
Niseem

On 4/17/21 1:33 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:

Dear Niseem

Thank you, yes indeed, your final R has been positively shifted (positive slope), 

where I was confused between DS and DS_P, also between C and R, I’m very 

sorry about my earlier dumb questions. By the way, why did you define R like 

this, where the signal is in the denominator, one would usually define the 

correlator with the signal term in the numarator like DS_P/DS (in/out), or? 

You did confirm that the mixed distributions were found to be symmetric, while 

it was not really clear what you expect on the out-of-plane (DS) distribution, 

at least a clear asymmetry is not seen in the model. The q2 independence 

and Ach dependence of the measured signal would be the main message of 

your APS talk, which is also consistent with earlier CMW measurements, right? 

I’m signing off your talk provided with the other convener’s and member’s 

agreements. My final comments on your nice slides are : 

“d” is fixed to “2” in your analysis for this CMW measurement, so please indicate 

somewhere “d=2” especially in p5 and p12, where you use (d) in the formula. 

Please also indicate the AMPT in the left figure in p6 does show the type-II signal 

(blue points) shown in the right figure. I would also have mixed distributions in the 

upper panels of the left figures as well. 

In your future PWG presentation, we would like to see more detailed comparison 

as a function of centrality and q2 dependence with C(DS) and R(DS) plots 

including DS -> DS’ -> DS” steps. Especially for Ach dependence, only the final 

slope of R(DS”) are presented without detailed C(DS) and R(DS) plots, so please 

show them all as well. I would also show DS distributions and C(DS) correlations 

in addition to the R(DS) in this kind of talk like APS to explain more detailed 

experimental analysis steps, but you have not requested them as preliminaries 

to be shown, so never mind. Did you present what Aihong was asking you during 

the PWG?

Best regards, ShinIchi

On Apr 18, 2021, at 0:58, Niseem via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi ShinIchi,

(1) Please note that the quadrupole signal in in-plan signal DS_P. It can be shifted left or right based on the type of signal please read, "xx".
(2) In slide 5 with the large signal you will see only "DS_P" only has the shift.
(3) As you see in slide 8 the in-plan is the one that is shifted "shift right/left depends on the quadrupole type"

- I think the correlator is very clearly explained, please give me some comments on my APS slides if there are any comments.

Thanks,
Niseem

On 4/17/21 10:42 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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