STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Chunjiang

Thank you very much for the answer. I now remember the discussion in the PWG, but 

I had not really been understanding correctly at that time, as I was fooled by saying 

"the ratio of average and averaged ratio are different”, which is true, though. 

For the same centrality, the multiplicity for Ru is higher, and v2 is also slightly higher for 

Ru at a given multiplicity (according to your result, the ratio is always above one), and 

v2 has steep negative slope with multiplicity around 5-20% centrality. These 3 combined 

effects are mimicking the v2 ratio at these two centrality bins around 5-20% to be very 

close to unity, where v2 ratio is effectively taken at different multiplicity between 2 systems, 

so we divide v2{Ru}(Mult.) / v2{Zr}(Mult.-alpha), that has happened to be about unity in 

case of the ratio as a function of centrality (just at that centrality region 5-20%), that has 

been seen in the isobar CME arXiv paper as well as your centrality binned ratio. 

So I just wanted to say it is reasonable to see your minimum at about Nth_corr~220 

to be systematically higher at about ~1.01 than the other minimum of about ~1.00 at 

centrality 5-20%. Maybe this is what you meant by saying "the ratio of average and 

averaged ratio are different" or "the centrality bin width effect", which sounds different 

to me. But anyway, I think we understood, which is more like "a shifted ratio" etc. I think 

it was indeed a good decision for you to show the ratio as a function multiplicity, which 

is expected to be different from the one as a function of centrality anyway. Thanks 

again for the hard works and interesting results. 

Best regards, ShinIchi 

PS : By the way, the 4 plots at the lower-right corner of your page 7 of the PWG slide 

below, your legends seem to be wrong, where black/blue are both standard, and red/pink 

are both two-subevent method, right? Please confirm. If you can plot two black points and 

two blue points from upper (Ru) and lower (Zr) panels to overlay them in the same panel, 

then you will see what I mentioned above, where black points are always given at the same 

multiplicity by definition, but blue points will be shifted horizontally for the same centrality 

and happens to be similar in v2 for the 2nd and 3rd points from the most central. 

On Oct 7, 2021, at 12:45, Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Dear Shinlchi,

Hello. Thank you for your questions. 

I just like to make sure the size of systematic 

errors on these 3 ratios are all OK or not, at least, compared to the plots from isobar CME 

arXiv paper in page 6, where the v2 ratio seem to be touching unity (which might be caused 

by the large symbol size, though), while yours are well above unity at minimum in page 7. 

We might have discussed in the PWG, as there could be some difference in terms of the 

extraction methods and conditions. Could you please remind me about this, if you have the 

answer? 

1) the systematics are ok in our Preliminary plots. For conservative and safe considerations, we estimate the systematics including the difference between standard and two-subevent, the different from different methods  calculations and conditions. 

2) If we use the unit Nch bin, the results would not touch to 0 at Ntrk ~ 220, this is the centrality bin width effect. ( we already talked this in the FCV meeting in https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/isobar_nuclear_deformation_0929_Collmeeting_czhang_v3.pdf) 

Best regards

Chunjian 

On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:31 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Chunjian

Thank you very much. The slides are very good. I just like to make sure the size of systematic 

errors on these 3 ratios are all OK or not, at least, compared to the plots from isobar CME 

arXiv paper in page 6, where the v2 ratio seem to be touching unity (which might be caused 

by the large symbol size, though), while yours are well above unity at minimum in page 7. 

We might have discussed in the PWG, as there could be some difference in terms of the 

extraction methods and conditions. Could you please remind me about this, if you have the 

answer? 

Best regards, ShinIchi

On Oct 7, 2021, at 11:31, Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Dear Shinlchi and Prithwish,

Please find my new version including all your nice comments in https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DNP_Oct_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v4.pdf

I also add slide 9 of the bulk observable comparison. 

Comments are welcome and looking for your further comments.

Best regards

Chunjian 

On Oct 6, 2021, at 5:40 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Chunjian

Thank you, I like the maker/symbol style/type of figures in page 7 and 8 much better now. 

You can plot the points whatever data/analysis allows, but I would just like to have the 

x-axis range from 0 to 400 (or from 0 to 450), not from ~5 to ~395…, just like the one on 

the top-right figure of page 6. Sorry, this is just a cosmetic comment. If I may be allowed to 

add, I would also like to move the location of "2%" aligned with other numbers, that can be 

done by typing something like “5,  2,  1,  0.2 (%)” or? I will also wait for your final decision 

on the choice to include the multiplicity ratio to be compared with these ratios or not, where 

the ratio of Ntrk_offline distributions has an interesting/specific structure (with a broad maximum 

around 140~200 as well as somewhat narrower minimum around 260~270, plus a strong peak 

close to ~400 that comes back to unity again at about ~450), where they are most likely all 

given by the deformation and/or nuclear skin structures). In order to show/high-light the strong 

peak around ~400, you might even need to have an additional inset figure panel with much 

expanded vertical scale, though... 

Best regards, ShinIchi 

On Oct 7, 2021, at 4:27, Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Dear Shinlchi,

Than you for you sign-off. 

Why don’t you start your x-axis (Nch_corr) from zero for page 7 and 8? Any reason 

to exclude a first few points as you are starting from 20 in stead of 0? If not, please 

start from 0. Even if you do need to exclude a first few points from the plots, I would 

still start the x-axis from 0. 

I calculate them in 0-80% centrality which exactly follow the CME runs and events and track cuts. Now I release it to 10 tracks with 80%. Please find the new version in https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DNP_Oct_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v2.pdf

The plot on the page 8 is very good to show the experimental data with emphasized 

"large and clear solid" symbol, however it is not the case in the plots on page 7, where 

the experimental data are not really clearly shown, so could you please make it (STAR 

Data) clear with "larger and solid symbol", while the other model points with "smaller 

and open symbols”? 

Thank you for this nice comments. We were working on this and now I use the better version in slide 7 and 8. Hope you will like it 

If the Ntrk_offline definition shown in your backup is mostly same as your Nth_corr, 

it would still be good to show this "multiplicity ratio" also in the plots in page 7 and 8, 

although we do not yet know how to compare/interpret, maybe just with a thin line 

with excluding the connecting lines between points that you now have in your page 7. 

I would still like to see your Nth_corr distribution overlaid with the published Ntrk_offline 

distribution to confirm these, if they are different, I do agree that it does not make sense 

to overlay the multiplicity ratio on page 7 and 8. 

I plane to use a new slide include flow and variance with the Ntrk from CME draft. These observable are all influenced by deformation. So, I will compare them and discuss it in the last slides. (Will add it )

Best regards 

Chunjian 

On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:49 AM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Chunjian

Thanks for the nice presentation. Although I’ve already signed off, I have a few more 

questions and suggestions.

Why don’t you start your x-axis (Nch_corr) from zero for page 7 and 8? Any reason 

to exclude a first few points as you are starting from 20 in stead of 0? If not, please 

start from 0. Even if you do need to exclude a first few points from the plots, I would 

still start the x-axis from 0. 

The plot on the page 8 is very good to show the experimental data with emphasized 

"large and clear solid" symbol, however it is not the case in the plots on page 7, where 

the experimental data are not really clearly shown, so could you please make it (STAR 

Data) clear with "larger and solid symbol", while the other model points with "smaller 

and open symbols"? 

If the Ntrk_offline definition shown in your backup is mostly same as your Nth_corr, 

it would still be good to show this "multiplicity ratio" also in the plots in page 7 and 8, 

although we do not yet know how to compare/interpret, maybe just with a thin line 

with excluding the connecting lines between points that you now have in your page 7. 

I would still like to see your Nth_corr distribution overlaid with the published Ntrk_offline 

distribution to confirm these, if they are different, I do agree that it does not make sense 

to overlay the multiplicity ratio on page 7 and 8. 

Best regards, ShinIchi

On Oct 6, 2021, at 23:34, Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Dear Shinlchi,

Hello. Thank you for your nice comments and suggestions. I also include your comments with the updated version in https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DNP_Oct_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v1.pdf

I also update the new plots. 

On Oct 5, 2021, at 11:51 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Chunjian
I would also sign off your nice DNP presentation with a few comments.
1) I would also like to see the ratio of RefMult in the page 7 in addition to your page 8.

Finally we may not include the Nch distribution in the outside. This may be accidental. I have no idea how to connect it right now. We need to dig it out with more studies and insights

Please find the plots below 

<PastedGraphic-1.png>

2) I thought you were also requesting preliminaries for v2, v3 and 2nd and 3rd order normalized
   mean pT fluctuation before making their ratios. If so, we could have them in the backup?  

I did not request them separately. I only need the ratio for my talk presently and the ratio is totally robust.  We do not need to worry anything. 

3) I would also have original RefMult distributions somewhere at least in your back-up?

I include the published CME refmult in my backup slide

4) Please prepare a set of preliminary plots in one page so that we can include in the DB.

I will do it as soon as possible. Thank you for your kind reminder.

Best regards, ShinIchi

Best regards 

Chunjian 

On Oct 6, 2021, at 10:46, Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Chunjian,
Nice slides:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/DNP_Oct_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v0.pdf

Please see my comments below. With these included, I sign-off.

slide#1:
I think it's always a great idea to spell out your institution name below your name. Also your name doesn't have to be written in too small font like you have now.

slide#2:
The right most cartoon is not "Freeze Out" its more like "Detection"

slide#2:
"pressure gradient forces" --> "pressure gradients"

slide#2:
"The shape of the size of the overlap is directly controlled by the shape..colliding nuclei" --> "The shape and the size of the overlap is controlled by the shape...colliding nuclei, most dominantly in central collisions."

slide#3:
In the equation of \rho(r,\theta,φ), a parenthesis ")" is missing in the exponential.

slide#3:
"Final Particle Flow" --> "Produced Particle Flow"

slide#3:
"Harmonic flow" --> "Anisotropic flow"

slide#4:
"is just shape" --> "is related to the shape"

slide#4:
"Harmonic flow" --> "Harmonic flow coefficient"

slide#4:
This sentence is unclear: "R_\perp is related to Y_2^0 projected to the transverse plane". R_\perp is related to which aspect of Y_2^0? It's magnitude ?

slide#4:
Equation of "R_\perp^2 = <x^2> +<y^2> =<...>" I don't understand how this works. The term inside <...> is dimensionless because spherical harmonics are dimensionless where as R, x, y are not. Something is missing here.

slide#4:
Please increase the font of the sentence starting with "fluctuation of ...."

slide#5:
Much of what you write on this slide is related to search for CME. The sentence starting with "A precision.." is not needed for your talk. But please somewhere write "Isobar run originally dedicated to CME search". You can also refer to Sergei's talk for more details but that is optional.

slide#6:
"Deviate from unity from mid-central" --> "Deviate from unity in mid-central collisions"

slide#6:
"Request for more and finer bins" --> "Goal is to explore this in finer bins of multiplicity"

slide#7:
"deformation using heavy ion collisions" -->"deformation in heavy ion collision measurements"

slide#8:
Title "variance ratio" --> "[pT]-variance ratio"

slide#8:
"also could be used in conjunction with anisotropy" -->"could also be used in conjunction with anisotropic"

slide#9:
"The large difference of v_2 and v_3 suggests" --> "The large difference of v_2 and v_3 in central isobar collisions"

slide#9:
"[pT] fluctuations also could be used in conjunction with anisotropy flow on the deformation study conclusion are consistent"
-->
"[pT] fluctuations also sensitive to deformation study leads to consistent conclusion:"

slide#9:
"Opportunity to study on nuclear structure at a much shorter scale (~10^-24 s)"
-->
"Opportunity to study nuclear structure at very short time scale (~10^-24 s) accessible through heavy ion collisions"

slide#9:
"A lot of possibility for scan." -->"A future deformed-system scan will be ideal."

slide#9:
"But need to first establish the heavy ion systematics using species with known deformation"
-->
"Species with well known deformation will be useful to better understand the systematics and establish the efficacy of this approach"

Best,
Prithwish


On 2021-10-01 17:46, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:

Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
ChunJian Zhang (chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu) has submitted a material for
a review, please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/56634
---
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