STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

["Zhao, Jie" <zhao656 AT purdue.edu>]

Dear Zhangbu,

Thanks for your comments!

I am flattered by you compliment about my UPC background and willingness to take my suggestions.

In fact, if you started UPC work in 2017, you probably have more experience than me already.

We do have a working group called LFSUPC, which has a collective decades of experience and institutional memories on UPC physics.

I do hope that you take advantage on that for your analysis.

Nevertheless, I did write the ZDC SMD proposal and build the ZDC-SMD with a small group of collaborators two decades ago.

I respect your experiences in many aspects and of course for building the ZDC-SMD.

As replied in my last email, i am happy to acknowledge and cite the references. hope this make it clear.

1. My understanding of STAR collaboration policy is that no one “owns” a physics program personally and anyone 
   should be able to choose any topics which interest them. This has served STAR well. 
   “As we mentioned, initially the analysis is motivated by the anisotropy in small systems in pp, ep, etc, 
   during the discussion at one of the ISMD workshops around 2017-2018. “ 
   This claim does not add any entitlement or disqualification of working on a purely diffractive and exclusive process. 
   I would appreciate that you state “STAR has proposed in 2003 to use ZDC SMD as a measure of reaction plane and 
   study rho spin alignment in UPC diffractive photoproduction. 
   I am interested in this topic, and we will see if we can confirm this phenomenon and/or discover something new.”

It was motivated by small system flow and that’s how i wrote it. As I said previously I will acknowledge the proposal, 

but i do not obliged to write spin alignment as was in the proposal because that’s not what motivated me.

1. No one else has shown publicly any analysis of STAR data using ZDC SMD on UPC data. 
   You are doing that, which is good. The more people work on this, the better. 

However, the motivation was clearly written in the proposal of the detector you used for the same purpose. 
The wheel has been invented two decades ago. 

I do take issues with the statements: 
“The last time when I first discuss it at PWG ~1 year ago with my naive idea on the ZDC-SMD plane 
(for example two points to define a line, the impact parameter), 
many people question the event plane reconstruction by ZDC-SMD in UPC, argued what’s mechanism behind, 
the neutrons may be just randomly distributed, and suggestions also made, for example using mix-event. … 
Now it’s great for me to know that people already had almost the same idea many years ago, so i am not doing something totally wrong…” 

First, it is the analyzer’s sole responsibility of doing a thorough literature search before claiming novelty. 
It added ZERO point to the originality of your idea no matter how much effort you have put in or how many people 
who surround you were not aware of what has been done or proposed. 

As i said i am happy to acknowledge and refer to the proposal. My statements are just reflection of the discussion at the pwg meeting. 

i respect and acknowledge the original idea that people made, and also we should allow people to motivated by different aspects.

Here i was not claiming novelty, i was merely explaining my understanding of what ZDC might be measuring in UPC.

Secondly, it shows that you discussed the subject in the wrong working group (apologize to FCV colleague). 

We do have motivated by different aspects (maybe same physics), our group (previous) has been studied the flow in small system, and using ZDC-SDM plane for searching CME in small system p+Au for a long time, and ~2017-2018, there are many new flow results in small system, it’s natural to think about using ZDC-SMD plane to study flow in UPC events.And thus i feel this topic should be discussed with people that more familiar with flow, and correlations analysis, which is the Bulk corr. and now is the FCV group. There are groups of people studying the flow, alignment, polarization, and kinds of correlations in FCV. 

I would be happy to see that the original idea is proven wrong, and your analysis may reveal that in the future. But until then, 
you have to acknowledge the motivation written in the proposal and endorsed by the collaboration as the original idea no more no less.

Again i am happy to acknowledge that.  This analysis may proven to be wrong or not, but we should allowed people to motivated by different aspects. I was simply motivated by correlations with respect to the zdc event plane in those small upc events. This wasn’t specifically in the proposal. 

I am not afraid of being labelled as biased publicly since neither the original idea in the proposal nor the second one whatever that is 
is my making and I do not have an official role in the collaboration to enforce anything I said.

But I do hope that there are some basic foundations we agree on so that we can have productive discussions within the collaboration.

As i said I do respect your effort for building the ZDC-SMD, and i feel i did take your comments constructively, but now i feel i'm pressured. 

Normally i would not have any problem with presenting it to lfsupc, but there was ill remark from a convener that was insulting that i don’t feel i would be treated unbiasedly. I had bad experience before that i was deprived of a talk opportunity because of a statement that was literally correct according to our knowledge back then (now, there should be no single doubt that my statement is correct.). Being a postdoc, i did not get any support from the management, at that time you are the spokesperson. It was really hard on me personally, I wouldn’t want to repeat that. 

Best regards,

Jie

On Mar 6, 2022, at 9:29 PM, Xu, Zhangbu <xzb AT bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Jie: 

 

I am flattered by you compliment about my UPC background and willingness to take my suggestions.

In fact, if you started UPC work in 2017, you probably have more experience than me already.

We do have a working group called LFSUPC, which has a collective decades of experience and institutional memories on UPC physics.

I do hope that you take advantage on that for your analysis.

Nevertheless, I did write the ZDC SMD proposal and build the ZDC-SMD with a small group of collaborators two decades ago.

 

From you replies, I do have a couple of suggestions, and I hope that you take it constructively.

 

1. My understanding of STAR collaboration policy is that no one “owns” a physics program personally and anyone 
   should be able to choose any topics which interest them. This has served STAR well. 
   “As we mentioned, initially the analysis is motivated by the anisotropy in small systems in pp, ep, etc, 
   during the discussion at one of the ISMD workshops around 2017-2018. “ 
   This claim does not add any entitlement or disqualification of working on a purely diffractive and exclusive process. 
   I would appreciate that you state “STAR has proposed in 2003 to use ZDC SMD as a measure of reaction plane and 
   study rho spin alignment in UPC diffractive photoproduction. 
   I am interested in this topic, and we will see if we can confirm this phenomenon and/or discover something new.”
2. No one else has shown publicly any analysis of STAR data using ZDC SMD on UPC data. 
   You are doing that, which is good. The more people work on this, the better. 

However, the motivation was clearly written in the proposal of the detector you used for the same purpose. 
The wheel has been invented two decades ago. 
I do take issues with the statements: 
“The last time when I first discuss it at PWG ~1 year ago with my naive idea on the ZDC-SMD plane 
(for example two points to define a line, the impact parameter), 
many people question the event plane reconstruction by ZDC-SMD in UPC, argued what’s mechanism behind, 
the neutrons may be just randomly distributed, and suggestions also made, for example using mix-event. … 
Now it’s great for me to know that people already had almost the same idea many years ago, so i am not doing something totally wrong…” 

First, it is the analyzer’s sole responsibility of doing a thorough literature search before claiming novelty. 
It added ZERO point to the originality of your idea no matter how much effort you have put in or how many people 
who surround you were not aware of what has been done or proposed. 

Secondly, it shows that you discussed the subject in the wrong working group (apologize to FCV colleague). 
I would be happy to see that the original idea is proven wrong, and your analysis may reveal that in the future. But until then, 
you have to acknowledge the motivation written in the proposal and endorsed by the collaboration as the original idea no more no less.

 

I am not afraid of being labelled as biased publicly since neither the original idea in the proposal nor the second one whatever that is 
is my making and I do not have an official role in the collaboration to enforce anything I said.

But I do hope that there are some basic foundations we agree on so that we can have productive discussions within the collaboration.

 

Sincerely, 

 

Zhangbu Xu 

 

From: Jie Zhao <jiezhao1119 AT hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:03 PM
To: "Xu, Zhangbu" <xzb AT bnl.gov>
Cc: "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 02/Mar/2022 Wed. 9:30 AM at BNL

 

Dear Zhangbu,

 

Thanks for your nice comments, indeed it’s great to know that, and i am of course happy to refer to it. 

 

As we mentioned, initially the analysis is motivated by the anisotropy in small systems in pp, ep, etc, during the discussion at one of the ISMD workshops around 2017-2018. 

I am certainly not claiming flow, we are analyzing anisotropies with the traditional RP method, and this has interesting relevance to the ongoing discussion of small system flow from my naive views, so i put question mark there.

 

The last time when I first discuss it at PWG ~1 year ago with my naive idea on the ZDC-SMD plane (for example two points to define a line, the impact parameter), 

many people question the event plane reconstruction by ZDC-SMD in UPC, argued what’s mechanism behind, the neutrons may be just randomly distributed, and suggestions also made, 

for example using mix-event. 

So i look back STAR 2017 UPC paper, found that there are some discussions about the GDRs i am thinking of which maybe one of the reasons. So this time i add some of the discussions on this, with question mark to get more comments from people.

https://lists.bnl.gov/pipermail/star-fcv-l/Week-of-Mon-20210412/000772.html   

https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/lfsupc/jiezhao/bulk/test20181128.pdf   

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/test20211012.pdf  

 

Now it’s great for me to know that people already had almost the same idea many years ago, so i am not doing something totally wrong, though i still have concerns about whether the analysis is correct or not.

BTW, but i am not aware of anyone who’s doing anisotropic studies with these data using ZDC-SMD plane.

 

Of cause you had many years of experience on UPC, your suggestions are always welcome!

 

Best regards,

Jie

 

On Mar 3, 2022, at 10:17 AM, Xu, Zhangbu <xzb AT bnl.gov> wrote:

 

Dear Jie: 

 

Thank you for the nice results. 

 

I would mainly comment on your motivation slide#2. 

 

Just from a historic perspective: 

 

Please refer to the ZDC SMD proposal where the reaction plane for UPC and specifically for rho alignment is discussed:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/files/ZDC-SMD.pdf

and reference therein. I feel that citing just references in UPC rho in 2002 and 2017 is incomplete since 
the ZDC SMD references are more directly relevant to what you are doing. And it is one of the three motivations 
why we built ZDC SMD. 

 

A second historic reference is the paper (#323) now under collaboration review:

There is an additional interference resulting in spin alignment which has not been discussed before.

 

I feel that it is important those references are added when you discuss about the physics motivation.

I don’t think that just putting question marks in what motivate the study is correct.

One can argue that we know nothing about UPC and argue that the diffractive rho production is flow.

I don’t think that this is justified. 

 

I will be happy to discuss this. 

 

Thanks!

Zhangbu 

 

From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Jie Zhao via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Reply-To: Jie Zhao <jiezhao1119 AT hotmail.com>, "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:24 AM
To: "Zhao, Jie" <zhao656 AT purdue.edu>, "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 02/Mar/2022 Wed. 9:30 AM at BNL

 

Dear All,

 

please find my slides for today’s meeting below:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/test20211012.pdf

 

Best regards,

Jie Zhao

 

On Mar 1, 2022, at 11:28 PM, Zhao, Jie via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

 

Dear Conveners,

 

if possible, i would like to present few slides updates of our previous analysis on the “correction study in UPC”, thanks!

 

Best regards!

Jie

 

 

On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:34 PM, subhash via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

 

Dear All,

We shall have our FCV PWG meeting this Wednesday (02/Mar/2022) at 9:30 AM in BNL (NY time zone). If you would like to present, please let us know. Please try posting your slides by Tuesday. The agenda items will be collected at:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/jjiastar/bulkcorr

Thanks and regards,
Jiangyong, Prithwish and Subhash


ZOOM LINK FOR FCV MEETING:

https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/95735410810?pwd=M2JRZDBDSng4MG5SYmx6dlppYXhLZz09
Meeting ID: 957 3541 0810
Passcode: 486227
Dial by your location
      +1 646 876 9923 US (New York)
       +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
       +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
       +1 408 638 0968 US (San Jose)
       +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
       +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
       +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
One tap mobile
+16468769923,,95735410810#,,,,*486227# US (New York)
+13017158592,,95735410810#,,,,*486227# US (Washington DC)
to find your local number: https://stonybrook.zoom.us/u/ayWPRMpd7
_______________________________________________
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