Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-fcv-l - Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by ChunJian Zhang for ATHIC 2021 submitted for review

star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by ChunJian Zhang for ATHIC 2021 submitted for review

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • To: "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by ChunJian Zhang for ATHIC 2021 submitted for review
  • Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 11:24:21 -0400
Chunjian, in case you're unable to change all the plots before your talk you should at least write : "Ru centrality" instead of "Centrality" on the slides just to avoid confusion.

Best,
Prithwish


On 2021-11-04 10:11, Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page