STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

["Wang, Fuqiang" <fqwang AT purdue.edu>]

Jagbir,

 

Please see my comments below.

 

Best regards,

Fuqiang

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: jagbir <jagbir AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>

> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 7:44 AM

> To: esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp; ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov;

> jiangyong.jia AT stonybrook.edu; levanfinch AT gmail.com; aihong AT bnl.gov;

> aggarwal AT pu.ac.in; Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu>

> Cc: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; star-cme-

> focusgroup-l AT lists.bnl.gov

> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting, 18/Nov/2020 (Wed) 9:30am (New

> York time zone)

>

> Dear Fuqiang,

>

> Thanks for your nice comments. Please find below my reply to your comments.

>

> 1. Effectively, your signal after subtraction of correlated background will

> average to zero within a centrality bin.

>

> Not true, In case of Fix-1 and Fix-2 substracting the correlated background

> which is obtained from default AMPT, signal is not zero within centrality bin as

> the correlated background is zero (Slide 18 & 19).

>

[Fuqiang Wang] These plots are simply Delta gamma, right? Then they are expected to be non-zero. I don't understand the statement here "the correlated background is zero". What do you mean?

 

> 2. You divide this centrality bin into 10 bins according to your dumbbell variable,

> in real event and in shuffled event. You take the difference of two, so you're

> deemed to have some bins positive and other bins negative. You are always

> going to have CME signal no matter what (except the rare case where all bins

> are zero).

>

> Not true, In slide 24 (slide 25 for f_{CME}) we do not see any CME signal for

> default AMPT.

>

[Fuqiang Wang] How did you obtain the points on slide 25? Is it red - black and blue - black of some sort from slide 24? How were the black points on s25 obtained?

 

> 3. I don't think you can take such a liberty to claim positive bins as CME signal

> and ignore negative bins.

>

> We are categorising events depending on the back-to-back charge separation as

> one divides events in to different collision centralities depending on the impact

> parameter or event multiplicity. The positive bin corresponds to gamma positive

> for opposite-sign charge pairs and gamma negative for same-sign charge pairs

> which means same sign charge pairs are strongly correlated whereas opposite-

> sign charge pairs are weekly correlated which is considered as the CME signal.

> The negative bin corresponds to opposite-sign charge pairs strongly correlated

> (negative gamma) and same-sign charge pairs weekly correlated (positive

> gamma) those evens look

> like normal events i.e, no CME signal.

>

[Fuqiang Wang] Let me use your analogy of f_DbCs binning ßà centrality binning:

Your selection is f_DbCs ßà my selection is Nch

f_DbCs from events shuffled +/- particlesßà Nch from events shuffled charged/neutral particles

Delta gamma ßà neutral/charged ratio

We take difference between real signal and shuffled signal.

You’re seeing positive Delta gamma in large f_DbCs events; I’m seeing neutral/charged>1/2 in peripheral events and <1/2 in central events.

I’ll see this even when neutral/charged=1/3 is independent of centrality (not to say possibly centrality-dependent neutral/charged). This is called selection bias.

I cannot claim those neutral/charged>1/2 events as some exotic physics, and ignore the neutral/charged<1/2 events (or vice versa).

 

> Thanking you,

>

> With best regards,

> Jagbir Singh

> Panjab University

> Chandigarh

>

> On 2021-05-06 13:23, jagbir wrote:

> > Dear all,

> >

> > These are our email exchange from December last year. We have answered

> > all the comments earlier.

> > Please check.

> >

> > Thank you,

> > Jagbir Singh

> > Panjab University

> > Chandigarh

> >

> >

> > On 2020-12-17 16:40, jagbir wrote:

> >> Dear Fuqiang,

> >>

> >> Please find my replies here below:

> >>

> >> In the rightmost data points, the f_cme signals appear negative

> >> beacuse of substracting the correlated background. But we interpret

> >> CME-like signal if gamma_ss is negative and gamma_os is positive

> >> which is the case for leftmost data points whereas for the rightmost

> >> data points gamma_ss is positive and gamma_os is negative, so these

> >> rightmost points do not correspond to CME-like.

> >> So, for the rightmost data points, we can not interpret it as

> >> negative f_cme signal.

> >> The rightmost points correspond to normal behavior where opposite

> >> sign charged particles are correlated and same sign charged particles

> >> are uncorrelated.

> >>

> >> Thank you,

> >>

> >> With regards,

> >> Jagbir Singh

> >>

> >> On 2020-12-16 03:40, Wang, Fuqiang wrote:

> >>> Jagbir,

> >>>

> >>> Thanks for the plot. So you interpret the leftmost points as from

> >>> CME and extract a CME fraction from it. What physics would you

> >>> interpret the rightmost data points where the signals appear negative?

> >>>

> >>> Best regards,

> >>> Fuqiang

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>> -----Original Message-----

> >>>> From: jagbir <jagbir AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>

> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 8:55 AM

> >>>> To: Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu>

> >>>> Cc: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

> >>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; star-cme- focusgroup-l AT lists.bnl.gov;

> >>>> aggarwal AT pu.ac.in

> >>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting, 18/Nov/2020 (Wed) 9:30am

> >>>> (New York time zone)

> >>>>

> >>>> Dear Fuqiang,

> >>>>

> >>>> Please find my replies below:-

> >>>>

> >>>> ------------------------------

> >>>>

> >>>>       1. because your selection is predominated by statistical

> >>>> fluctuations yet

> >>>>       you're applying a cut on those statistical fluctuations.

> >>>>

> >>>>       Our selection is not by statistical fluctuations but based on

> >>>> fractional

> >>>>       Dumbbell charge separation in the data. However, similar type

> >>>> of charge

> >>>>       separation can be due to statistical fluctuations, to account

> >>>> for that

> >>>>       we are using charge reshuffle. Now we are having about 160M

> >>>> events.

> >>>> It is

> >>>>       seen that observed delta gamma in the data is large beyond

> >>>> statistical

> >>>>       fluctuations than those of charge reshuffle for  the top

> >>>> 0-20%

> >>>> Db+-max

> >>>>       bins. The plot you asked is attached here with email.

> >>>>

> >>>> ------------------------------

> >>>>

> >>>>       2. I mean the max Dbmax_shuffle bin is a random collection of

> >>>> events from

> >>>>       this centrality bin.

> >>>>

> >>>>       The max Dbmax_shuffle bin is not a random collection of

> >>>> events from

> >>>>       this centrality bin. As explained earlier we generated charge

> >>>> reshuffle

> >>>>       events by reshuffling charges of partices in the real data in

> >>>> a given

> >>>>       collision centrality. So, charge reshuffle events are

> >>>> completely independent

> >>>>       sample from real data sample in  given centrality though

> >>>> number of

> >>>>       positive/negative charged partciles are kept same in each

> >>>> reshuffle event

> >>>>       corresponding to real data event. Again  Dbmax_shuffle bins

> >>>> are made

> >>>>       according to the fractional Dumbbell charge separation in the

> >>>> charged

> >>>>       reshuffle event sample for a given collision centrality.

> >>>>

> >>>> ------------------------------

> >>>>

> >>>> Thank you,

> >>>> Jagbir Singh

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> On 2020-12-14 22:46, Wang, Fuqiang wrote:

> >>>> > Jagbir,

> >>>> >

> >>>> > Please see my replies below.

> >>>> >

> >>>> > Best regards,

> >>>> > Fuqiang

> >>>> >

> >>>> >

> >>>> >

> >>>> >> -----Original Message-----

> >>>> >> From: jagbir <jagbir AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>

> >>>> >> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:18 AM

> >>>> >> To: Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu>

> >>>> >> Cc: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

> >>>> >> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;

> >>>> >> star-cme-

> >>>> >> focusgroup-l AT lists.bnl.gov; aggarwal AT pu.ac.in

> >>>> >> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting, 18/Nov/2020 (Wed)

> >>>> >> 9:30am (New York time zone)

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >> Dear Fuqiang,

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >>     Please find my replies below:-

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >> 1.   I understand your motivation doing that but I don't agree this is

> >>>> >> the right approach

> >>>> >>     (I think it causes biases).

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >>     Please let me know why this is not the right approach and

> >>>> >> what kind of biases you meant.

> >>>> > [Fuqiang Wang] because your selection is predominated by

> >>>> > statistical fluctuations yet you're applying a cut on those

> >>>> > statistical fluctuations.

> >>>> >

> >>>> > Can you plot (data-chrgR. Bkg) and (Correlated bkg) vs (Dbmax

> >>>> > bin) on slide 25 so we can see the details better?

> >>>> >

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >> 2.   you have only one point left. Your f_cme is basically the

> >>>> >>       (Delta gamma of those events in that Dbmax bin)

> >>>> >>       - (Delta gamma of a random collection of events in the

> >>>> >> same centrality bin which happen

> >>>> >>       to have the same Dbmax_shuffle bin)

> >>>> >>       - (Delta gamma of those same random events calculated

> >>>> >> after the charges are shuffled)

> >>>> >>       Do I understand it correctly?

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >>     If only one point is left as you wrote, please see the

> >>>> >> explanation

> >>>> >> below:

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >>     Here, there is nothing like random collection of events in

> >>>> >> the same centrality bin.

> >>>> > [Fuqiang Wang] I mean the max Dbmax_shuffle bin is a random

> >>>> > collection of events from this centrality bin.

> >>>> >

> >>>> >>     We select events depending on Db+-max i.e., depending on the

> >>>> >> back-to-back charge

> >>>> >>     separation fDbCS = Db+-max-1. As you wrote only one point,

> >>>> >> in that case it is the

> >>>> >>     top 10% Db+-max events corresponding to maximum back-to-back

> >>>> >> charge separation events.

> >>>> >>     It is similar to selecting events in particular collision

> >>>> >> centrality depending on

> >>>> >>     the impact parameter or event multiplicity. As we have

> >>>> >> selected in the data top 10%

> >>>> >>     Db+-max corresponding to maximum back-to-back charge

> >>>> >> separation events, in  same way

> >>>> >>     we select events from charge reshuffle in the same collision

> >>>> >> centrality for top 10%

> >>>> >>     Db+-max(here Db+-max of charge reshuffle) corresponding to

> >>>> >> maximum

> >>>> >> back-

> >>>> >> to-back

> >>>> >>     separation. Now we get delta_gamma_data of real data events

> >>>> >> corresponding to top

> >>>> >>     10% Db+-max of data and delta_gamma_sta of charge reshuffle

> >>>> >> events corresponding to top

> >>>> >>     10% Db+-max of charge reshuffle for a given collision

> >>>> >> centrality which gives

> >>>> >>     us delta_gamma due to statistical fluctuations. Now for

> >>>> >> correlated background we

> >>>> >>     look for real events in the data corresponding to the top

> >>>> >> 10%

> >>>> >> Db+-max

> >>>> >>   of charge

> >>>> >>     reshuffle in a given centrality and get delta_gamma_cor from

> >>>> >> those real

> >>>> >>     data events.

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >>     Now the f_CME is obtained as

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >>     f_CME = N1*(delta_gamma_data - delta_gamma_sta -

> >>>> >> delta_gamma_cor)/(delta_gamma_data * N)

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >>     Where N1 is number of events in top 10% Db+-max and

> >>>> >>     N is total number of events in a given collision centrality.

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >> Thank you,

> >>>> >> With regards,

> >>>> >> Jagbir Singh

> >>>> >>

> >>>> >> On 2020-12-14 10:32, Wang, Fuqiang wrote:

> >>>> >> > Jagbir,

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> > Thanks for your answers.

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> > To your questions:

> >>>> >> >> Please clarify the following

> >>>> >> >>       Of course you've also removed the large charge-shuffle

> >>>> >> >> background which is basically

> >>>> >> >>       an autocorrelation effect (sort to speak) due to the

> >>>> >> >> Dbmax (and

> >>>> >> >> Dbmax_shuffle)

> >>>> >> >>       selection bias.

> >>>> >> > I was just saying it in passing, referring to the fact that

> >>>> >> > you're largely selecting on statistical fluctuations and

> >>>> >> > trying to remove the auto-correlation effect by shuffling. It wasn't a

> question.

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >>       Please explain the following:

> >>>> >> >>       So is your finite signal really due to the difference

> >>>> >> >> between the average of ratios

> >>>> >> >>       and the ratio of averages (or perhaps also due to

> >>>> >> >> residual effect from shuffling)?

> >>>> >> > I was referring to the fact that if you had a single Dbmax bin (i.e.

> >>>> >> > taking average first and then ratio) then you'd get zero

> >>>> >> > signal by definition. You now have 10 bins and take ratios

> >>>> >> > first in each bin and then take average of the ratios, and get a positive

> signal.

> >>>> >> > During the focus meeting discussion, it was made clear that

> >>>> >> > your analysis required multiple Dbmax bins, not taking average

> >>>> >> > of all bins, but only those with Delta gamma > 0. So now I

> >>>> >> > think I understand technically how you did it. I understand

> >>>> >> > your motivation doing that but I don't agree this is the right

> >>>> >> > approach (I think it causes

> >>>> biases).

> >>>> >> > So let me try to understand better:

> >>>> >> > On slide 9 of your focus meeting presentation

> >>>> >> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/CME_FOCUS.pdf,

> >>>> >> > you

> >>>> >> > state:

> >>>> >> > (1) If Delta gamma_bkg. is negative then it is taken as zero.

> >>>> >> > (2) If gamma_SS is not negative and gamma_OS is not positive

> >>>> >> > then delta gamma = 0.

> >>>> >> > Now to slide 25, let's take one centrality say 40-50%, you

> >>>> >> > have the blue points (signal) and red+green points (bkg). The

> >>>> >> > 8 points to the right of this centrality: all of them have

> >>>> >> > negative bkg and negative Delta gamma, so they are not counted

> >>>> >> > in your calculation of CME fraction. Now you're left with the

> >>>> >> > two leftmost points. Do both points satisfy (2) above? I know

> >>>> >> > both points seem to have

> >>>> >> > bkg>0 & Delta

> >>>> >> > gamma>0 but it's unclear if they satisfy SS<0 & OS>0. Assume

> >>>> >> > gamma>they do,

> >>>> >> > then you're taking average of these two data points. For the

> >>>> >> > sake of simplicity, let me say you have only one point left.

> >>>> >> > Your f_cme is basically the (Delta gamma of those events in

> >>>> >> > that Dbmax bin)

> >>>> >> > - (Delta gamma of a random collection of events in the same

> >>>> >> > centrality bin which happen to have the same Dbmax_shuffle

> >>>> >> > bin)

> >>>> >> > - (Delta gamma of those same random events calculated after

> >>>> >> > the charges are shuffled) Do I understand it correctly?

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> > Best regards,

> >>>> >> > Fuqiang

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >

> >>>> >> >> -----Original Message-----

> >>>> >> >> From: jagbir <jagbir AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>

> >>>> >> >> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 10:12 AM

> >>>> >> >> To: Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu>

> >>>> >> >> Cc: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

> >>>> >> >> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;

> >>>> >> >> star-cme-

> >>>> >> >> focusgroup-l AT lists.bnl.gov; aggarwal AT pu.ac.in

> >>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting, 18/Nov/2020 (Wed)

> >>>> >> >> 9:30am (New York time zone)

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> Dear Fuqiang, all,

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>    Sorry for not answering your email. Infact, I did not look this

> >>>> >> >>    email. Please go through my replies below:

> >>>> >> >> ------------------------

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>   1. A few events do not satisfy this cut so not including in

> >>>> >> >> it

> >>>> >> >> Db+-max

> >>>> >> >>      but in overall calculations all events are included.

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>   2. Yes

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>   3. We reshuffle charges in each event. We donot randomize

> charges

> >>>> >> >>      according to the positive/negative charge ratio of the

> >>>> >> >> given event.

> >>>> >> >>      In fact, we pick up one event and reshuffle

> >>>> >> >> positive/negative charges

> >>>> >> >>      keeping theta,  phi, number of postive charges and

> >>>> >> >> number of negative

> >>>> >> >>      charges as such. After this we calculate gamma correlator.

> >>>> >> >> This procedure

> >>>> >> >>      is repeated for each event. The Db+-max of reshuffle  is

> >>>> >> >> a bit bit wider

> >>>> >> >>      than the  real distribution which may be due to some

> >>>> >> >> correlations in the

> >>>> >> >>      real data whereas reshuffle is purely randomize. Db+-max

> >>>> >> >> binning is

> >>>> >> >>      done on the basis of same fractions.

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>   4. Let me explain this point

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>      We pick up a real data event and calculate following

> >>>> >> >>      i)  Dbmax+- of real data event

> >>>> >> >>      ii) reshuffle charges in an event

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>      iii) again calculate Dbmax+- and termed it Db+-max of

> >>>> >> >> charge reshuffle

> >>>> >> >>      iv)  calculate gamma of real data event

> >>>> >> >>      v)   calculate gamma of reshuffle event

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>      Now for a given centrality

> >>>> >> >>      Steps i) to v) repeated for each event. Db+-max (data)

> >>>> >> >> and

> >>>> >> >> Db+-max(reshuffle)

> >>>> >> >>      sliced into ten percentile bins.

> >>>> >> >>      Now average gamma is found in every sliced Db+-max

> >>>> >> >> (data) and

> >>>> >> >> Db+-max(reshuffle)

> >>>> >> >>      from the respective event samples. It should be noted

> >>>> >> >> that events in the top

> >>>> >> >>      say 10% Db+-max(data) are not the same as in the top 10%

> >>>> >> >> Db+-max(reshuffle) i.e,

> >>>> >> >>      real events in the top 10% Db+-max(data) are different

> >>>> >> >> from those top 10%

> >>>> >> >>      Db+-max(reshuffle). Now the correlated background is

> >>>> >> >> caculated from the real events

> >>>> >> >>      corresponding to the top 10% Db+-max(reshuffle) events.

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>       Please clarify the following

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>       Of course you've also removed the large charge-shuffle

> >>>> >> >> background which is basically

> >>>> >> >>       an autocorrelation effect (sort to speak) due to the

> >>>> >> >> Dbmax (and

> >>>> >> >> Dbmax_shuffle)

> >>>> >> >>       selection bias.

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>   5.  Db+-max distribution is sliced in to ten percentile

> >>>> >> >> bins which represent

> >>>> >> >>       different amount of charge separation in each sliced

> >>>> >> >> db+-max bin.

> >>>> >> >> Let us

> >>>> >> >>       say we have Db+-max = 2, in this case fractional

> >>>> >> >> dumbbell charge separation

> >>>> >> >>       f_DbCS = Db+-max-1=1 i.e., 100% back-to-back charge

> >>>> >> >> separation i.e.,

> >>>> >> >>       positive charged particles on one side of the dumbbell

> >>>> >> >> and negative charge

> >>>> >> >>       particles on other side of the dumbbell. So, computing

> >>>> >> >> gamma in different

> >>>> >> >>       Db+-max and calculating things is different from just

> >>>> >> >> making a single wide

> >>>> >> >>       bin as you mentioned. This method is designed to get

> >>>> >> >> CME-like enriched sample

> >>>> >> >>       in given collision centrality as one divides all events

> >>>> >> >> into different collision

> >>>> >> >>       centralities depending on either the impact parameter

> >>>> >> >> or event multiplicity but

> >>>> >> >>       one does not study all events taken together without

> >>>> >> >> making different

> >>>> >> >>       collision centrality classes. However, for a single

> >>>> >> >> wide

> >>>> >> >> Db+-max bin as you

> >>>> >> >>       wrote we will get zero signal.

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>       Please explain the following:

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>       So is your finite signal really due to the difference

> >>>> >> >> between the average of ratios

> >>>> >> >>       and the ratio of averages (or perhaps also due to

> >>>> >> >> residual effect from shuffling)?

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> Thank you,

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> with regards,

> >>>> >> >> Jagbir Singh

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> On 2020-11-18 23:18, Wang, Fuqiang wrote:

> >>>> >> >> > Hi Jagbir,

> >>>> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> > Your results are quite interesting. I have a few further

> >>>> >> >> > questions about the details of your analysis:

> >>>> >> >> > 1. For each event you have Dbmax with the condition of

> |Dbasy|<0.25.

> >>>> >> >> > You bin events of each centrality in Dbmax. You use all

> >>>> >> >> > events in your analysis (i.e. you're not throwing away

> >>>> >> >> > events based on Dbmax or Dbasy), right?

> >>>> >> >> > 2. In your calculation of gamma=<...>/v2c for a particular

> >>>> >> >> > Dbmax bin of a given centrality, the v2c is calculated

> >>>> >> >> > using those events only, right?

> >>>> >> >> > 3. For the charge reshuffle, you reshuffle the charges of

> >>>> >> >> > all events, and repeat your analysis from step 1 (i.e. you

> >>>> >> >> > treat this as a completely separate "new" data sample),

> >>>> >> >> > right? Did you "randomize" the charges according to the

> >>>> >> >> > positive/negative charge ratio of the given event? On s11,

> >>>> >> >> > the Dbmax_shuffle distribution is a bit wider than the real

> >>>> >> >> > distribution, do you understand why? How do you bin the

> >>>> >> >> > Dbmax and Dbmax_shuffle into

> >>>> >> >> > 10 bins, respectively (same bin edges or same fractions)?

> >>>> >> >> > 4. Your correlated background gamma is calculated for the

> >>>> >> >> > Dbmax bin where Dbmax is from the charge-shuffled events,

> >>>> >> >> > but using restored charges, right? If so, then you're

> >>>> >> >> > effectively taking gamma difference between Dbmax_i events

> >>>> >> >> > and Dbmax_shuffle_i events (which are different events),

> >>>> >> >> > right? Of course you've also removed the large

> >>>> >> >> > charge-shuffle background which is basically an

> >>>> >> >> > autocorrelation effect (sort to

> >>>> >> >> > speak) due to the Dbmax (and Dbmax_shuffle) selection bias.

> >>>> >> >> > 5. You divide Dbmax (and Dbmax_shuffle) into 10 bins and do

> >>>> >> >> > your analysis in each bin separately, and then take the

> >>>> >> >> > weighted average for your f_cme result. You could just use

> >>>> >> >> > a single wide Dbmax (and

> >>>> >> >> > Dbmax_shuffle) bin, then in principle you should get zero

> >>>> >> >> > signal because the correlated "background" is your real

> >>>> >> >> > signal since they are now identical event sample. So is

> >>>> >> >> > your finite signal really due to the difference between the

> >>>> >> >> > average of ratios and the ratio of averages (or perhaps

> >>>> >> >> > also due to residual effect from

> >>>> shuffling)?

> >>>> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> > This is a complicated analysis. It would be really good to

> >>>> >> >> > have more discussions so the details can flesh out better.

> >>>> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> > Thanks,

> >>>> >> >> > Fuqiang

> >>>> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> >> -----Original Message-----

> >>>> >> >> >> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On

> >>>> >> >> >> Behalf Of jagbir via Star- fcv-l

> >>>> >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:49 AM

> >>>> >> >> >> To: ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>;

> >>>> >> >> >> STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

> >>>> >> >> >> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>

> >>>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting, 18/Nov/2020

> >>>> >> >> >> (Wed) 9:30am (New York time zone)

> >>>> >> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> >> Dear ShinIchi, Prithwish and Jiangyong,

> >>>> >> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> >> I would like to give "Update on event by event charge

> >>>> >> >> >> separation in

> >>>> >> >> >> Au+Au collisions at 200GeV with STAR detector"

> >>>> >> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> >> Please add me to agenda.

> >>>> >> >> >> I will post my slides later.

> >>>> >> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> >> Thankyou,

> >>>> >> >> >> Jagbir Singh

> >>>> >> >> >>

> >>>> >> >> >> On 2020-11-16 15:57, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:

> >>>> >> >> >> > Dear FCV PWG colleagues

> >>>> >> >> >> > We will have our weekly FCV PWG meeting on coming

> >>>> >> >> >> > Wednesday

> >>>> >> >> >> > 18/Nov/2020

> >>>> >> >> >> > 9:30AM (in BNL) at our usual time and place. So if you

> >>>> >> >> >> > have anything to present, please let us know and please

> >>>> >> >> >> > post your slide by

> >>>> >> >> Tuesday.

> >>>> >> >> >> > We'll talk about the "HLT express productions" in the

> >>>> >> >> >> > beginning of the meeting as you see in the agenda page.

> >>>> >> >> >> > Jiangyong, please send a link to your slide from last week.

> >>>> >> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> >> > The zoom room link, ID and password are in our usual

> >>>> >> >> >> > drupal agenda page below.

> >>>> >> >> >> > Please also keep in mind that all the preliminary plots

> >>>> >> >> >> > should have already been there in the summary area below.

> >>>> >> >> >> > Best regards, Jiangyong, Prithwish and ShinIchi

> >>>> >> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> >> > Meeting agenda page with zoom link :

> >>>> >> >> >> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/jjiastar/bulkcorr

> >>>> >> >> >> >

> >>>> >> >> >> > Preliminary page :

> >>>> >> >> >> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/pwg/bulk-correlations/b

> >>>> >> >> >> > ulkco

> >>>> >> >> >> > rr-

> >>>> >> >> >> > pre

> >>>> >> >> >> > lim inary-summary

> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________

> >>>> >> >> >> > 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