STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Ok, now I understand it much better. I think we should use a band with 
lower and upper cut based on Ru and Zr.

Best,
Prithwish



On 2021-11-04 10:05, Jiangyong Jia via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> Hi Prithwish,
>
> Let me add to what Chunjian said:
>
> We take published p(Nch)_Ru offial 0-5% range, and divide according by
> statistics into 0.2, 1 and 2%, i.e. 0.2% contains 1/25 of the events
> in 0-5% etc.
>
>
> Jiangyong
>
>
>
> On 11/4/21 10:00 AM, Chunjian Zhang via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > Dear Prithwish,
> >
> > Hello. Thank you for kind approval. We use STAR CME Published Ru 
> > distribution to determine this. If you also want to use Zr, their 
> > differences are 2 tracks.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Chunjian
> >
> > > On Nov 4, 2021, at 9:48 AM, Prithwish Tribedy 
> > > <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Chunjian,
> > >   I've approved your talk since it is very similar to what you've 
> > > presented at the DNP. One question tough in the plots on slide#2 how 
> > > did you estimate the centrality bins 0.2,1, 2% ?
> > > These are not official centrality bins.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Prithwish
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2021-11-04 09:23, Chunjian Zhang via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > > > Dear Convenors,
> > > > Hello. Just a kinder reminder. If you have no further comments on my
> > > > slides, could you please move it to Physics? Since the conference 
> > > > will
> > > > start EST tonight ~Thank you
> > > > Best regards
> > > > Chunjian
> > > > > On Nov 2, 2021, at 7:06 PM, Chunjian Zhang
> > > > > <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> > > > > Dear Shinchi,
> > > > > Hello. Your nice comments are considered in
> > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ATHIC_Nov_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v3_0.pdf
> > > > > Thank you and best regards
> > > > > Chunjian
> > > > > On Nov 2, 2021, at 6:23 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
> > > > > <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > > > > Dear Chunjian
> > > > > You have 4 times page 8, which is very nice and instructive, you
> > > > > added just two lines going
> > > > > from 3rd to 4th times the same page, but without adding any text in
> > > > > the page or legend in
> > > > > the figure, so you could add a few words saying “line is nucleon
> > > > > glauber and open marker
> > > > > is quark glauber” somewhere in the page...
> > > > > Best regards, ShinIchi
> > > > > On Nov 3, 2021, at 6:35, Chunjian Zhang
> > > > > <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> > > > > Dear Shinlchi,
> > > > > Hello. Than you for nice comments.  Please find the new updates in
> > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ATHIC_Nov_STAR_SBU_ChunjianZhang_v3.pdf
> > > > > and my answers for addressing your comments below
> > > > > It’s very good to go step-by-step from 1) to 4) in p7, as I told
> > > > > you earlier,
> > > > > I would like to see just with “R0" in 3) and add “a0” in 4),
> > > > > that you can
> > > > > show us sometime later in the PWG. You know my step by step is:
> > > > > beta2—> Beta2+beta3—> beta2+beta3+a0—> beta2+beta3+R+a0;
> > > > > You nice comments will be addressed in the later PWG. But I do need
> > > > > time to run the cases (beta2+beta3+R). Because this is not the
> > > > > approximated estimations. These are direct input.
> > > > > Anyway, we can also estimate the R effect from the difference
> > > > > between beta2+beta3+a0 and beta2+beta3+R+a0.
> > > > > BUT. I also agree with you adding  beta2+beta3+R is a good
> > > > > suggestions and I will run it.
> > > > > In p8, you are showing Glauber estimators first with open symbols
> > > > > and
> > > > > then later lines, it’s not clear from the slide about the
> > > > > difference between
> > > > > symbols and lines, while red-blue difference is clear, though. Can
> > > > > you also
> > > > > do this with AMPT?
> > > > > Line is nucleon glauber and open marker is quark glauber. You can
> > > > > see more smear in the tail.  And the peripheral and mid-central is
> > > > > identical.
> > > > > We can not do it in the AMPT since AMPT the radial response of mean
> > > > > pt fluctuations is not enough or weaker . So it’s hard to give the
> > > > > right answers.
> > > > > In p9, you scale the experimental data by 1.015, so you might like
> > > > > to
> > > > > give a reasoning about this, too. You would also need to point out
> > > > > that
> > > > > there is one free parameter “trigger efficiency” in the Glauber
> > > > > fitting to
> > > > > the experimental data independently for two systems, since one
> > > > > excludes
> > > > > the peripheral region from the fitting, that is also the reasoning
> > > > > why you
> > > > > would like to scale up, I guess… We also need to think about how
> > > > > we
> > > > > compare these 4 different assumptions to the common data or
> > > > > individually…Thank you for this comment. I do need to add "! Note
> > > > > the normalization is very sensitive to the trigger efficiency”
> > > > > Thank you and best regards
> > > > > Chunjian
> > > > > On Nov 2, 2021, at 12:19 PM, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
> > > > > <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > > > > Dear Chunjian
> > > > > Thanks for the nice slide, I would sign off with a few comments
> > > > > below.
> > > > > It’s very good to go step-by-step from 1) to 4) in p7, as I told
> > > > > you earlier,
> > > > > I would like to see just with “R0" in 3) and add “a0” in 4),
> > > > > that you can
> > > > > show us sometime later in the PWG.
> > > > > In p8, you are showing Glauber estimators first with open symbols
> > > > > and
> > > > > then later lines, it’s not clear from the slide about the
> > > > > difference between
> > > > > symbols and lines, while red-blue difference is clear, though. Can
> > > > > you also
> > > > > do this with AMPT?
> > > > > In p9, you scale the experimental data by 1.015, so you might like
> > > > > to
> > > > > give a reasoning about this, too. You would also need to point out
> > > > > that
> > > > > there is one free parameter “trigger efficiency” in the Glauber
> > > > > fitting to
> > > > > the experimental data independently for two systems, since one
> > > > > excludes
> > > > > the peripheral region from the fitting, that is also the reasoning
> > > > > why you
> > > > > would like to scale up, I guess… We also need to think about how
> > > > > we
> > > > > compare these 4 different assumptions to the common data or
> > > > > individually…
> > > > > Best regards, ShinIchi
> > > > > On Oct 30, 2021, at 7:09, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l
> > > > > <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 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/56975
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 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