STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[James Dunlop <dunlop AT bnl.gov>]

I don't think there is any ambiguity in what was done.

The paper says:

The P (N offline ) distributions shown in Fig. 2 for data are normalized by 
the
number of events. The same is also applied for the Glauber distributions. 
However, the Glauber distributions are further scaled by an additional factor 
equal to the ratio of the integrals from 
Noffline = 50 to 500 taken between the
data and Glauber distributions.

--J

> On Nov 1, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Wang, Fuqiang via Star-fcv-l 
> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chunjian,
>  
> My understanding is the following:
> 1)     Glauber is just a fit to data. The two can scale up and down 
> simultaneously, for each system, depending on how the data normalization is 
> done. That’s not a problem.
> 2)     When plotting the ratio of the Ru/Zr data, there’s a scaling. I 
> don’t remember what exactly the scaling was; one choice could be that the 
> multiplicity distributions of Ru and Zr are both normalized to 1 (per 
> event) and then the ratio is taken.
> 3)     The same scaling is applied to the Glauber fit Ru/Zr ratio. There 
> isn’t an arbitrary scaling here, i.e. the relative Glauber vs data in each 
> system is fixed from the fit.
>  
> Best regards,
> Fuqiang
>  
>  
> From: Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> 
> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 10:49 AM
> To: Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu>
> Cc: Chirality and Vorticity PWG STAR Flow <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; 
> Star-Cme-Focusgroup-L <star-cme-focusgroup-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; Grigory 
> Nigmatkulov <nigmatkulov AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] Glauber fit in CME paper
>  
> Dear Fuqiang,
>  
> Hi. Thank you for your comments. Yes. In the vertical axis, what’s the 
> actual value of the scale factor? Would not we let the audience know this 
> in the paper clearly?Even in the talk, nobody mention this. I would not say 
> let’t the audience guess there is no any  “tricky” process. 
>  
>  Also, please find the similar recent study in slides 4 
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/nuclear%20deformation%20and%20neutronSkin_isobar_FCV1026_CZhang.pdf.
>  It must have one value around 0.99 or 0.98 to something else scaling. 
>  
> Best regards 
> Chunjian 
>  
>  
> On Nov 1, 2021, at 10:35 AM, Fuqiang Wang <fqwang AT purdue.edu> wrote:
>  
> Hi Chunjian,
>  
> Do you mean the scaling in the vertical axis?
> I think it’s just a plotting convenience. 
>  
> The Glauber is fit to the data in the range of Nch>50 I believe. 
> 
> Best regards,
> Fuqiang
>  
> —————————
> Fuqiang Wang
> Professor of physics
> Purdue University 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 1, 2021 at 10:06 AM, <Chunjian Zhang via Star-fcv-l> wrote:
> 
> Dear experts,
> 
> Hi. Based on our recent study, I have one comment on the CME paper Glauber 
> fit.
> 
> I could not find any hints that the Glauber fit was scaled by a factor to 
> match the STAR multiplicity trend. To me, it’s a misleading that I would 
> like to believe and be surprised that the case3 describe the tend so well. 
> (I believe the outside people will also have the same opinion as mine) I do 
> think the CME author and experts need to consider mention this in the 
> revised CME paper when you comment on the referee reports. 
> 
> Thank you and best regards 
> Chunjian 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

--
He/Him/His
Please do not feel obligated to respond to this message outside of your work 
hours.
James C Dunlop  Ph.: (631) 344-7781                       
Building 510A           Cell: (631)316-8153
P.O. Box 5000           Fax: (631) 344-4206
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973
dunlop AT bnl.gov