STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Cameron Racz <cracz001 AT ucr.edu>]

Hi Subhash,

I’ve now updated all of my systematics and the slides with the newest plots can be found here

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/Quark-Matter-2022/Event-Plane-Correlated-Triangular-Flow-sqrtsNN-30-GeV-AuAu-Collision

I have now updated the systematics by running the Barlow check on every variation for each bin individually, rather than averaging the check over all bins. (variations can be found here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/CRacz_3GeV_prelimUpdate.pdf) If a variation passed the Barlow check for a bin, that variation is included in the systematics. This has helped some of the 0-10% centrality data points show systematic uncertainties now, but it has not increased the uncertainties for 10-40%. The systematics on 10-40% are still too small to see, but I do have all of my variations included whenever they pass the check.

Cameron Racz

Ph.D. Candidate 

Heavy-ion Physics Group

University of California, Riverside

On Apr 1, 2022, at 8:35 AM, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Cameron,

Ok, once you fix the it, please upload the updated poster and send the slides to FCV asap. Meantime I am sending your poster to star-talks, so other reviewers can start commenting.

Thanks and regards,
Subhash

On 2022-04-01 08:28 PM, Cameron Racz wrote:

I think the problem is that I’m not performing the Barlow check on a
bin-by-bin basis. For one variation I was essentially taking the
average of the check over all plots, and if it passes on average, then
I include the systematics from that variation in all bins on all
plots. I currently include the systematics from the eta-subvent
variation in all bins, but it’s just very small for most bins. I
also don’t have any other sources of systematic uncertainties on my
plots because none of the other variations passed the Barlow check on
average. If I should be doing this check for each bin individually,
that may be where the problem is and I can try to fix that.
Cameron Racz
Ph.D. Candidate
Heavy-ion Physics Group
University of California, Riverside

On Apr 1, 2022, at 12:51 AM, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:
For quark matter, you can consider the eta-subevent as an
independent source, take this out from Barlow pass/fail check and
add in quadrature with other errors. That would be a conservative
estimate and should be fine for preliminary.
On 2022-04-01 12:10 PM, Cameron Racz wrote:
Hi Subhash,
Ok that makes sense, I can go back through my variations and check
if
the samples actually change before performing the Barlow check.
For Quark Matter I do think I could at least update the systematics
from the eta-sub event variation, but I’m not sure exactly how to
do
that in a way that would produce a subset of the data.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:57 PM subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:
Hi Cameron,
For Barlow check your case-1 and case-2 has to be of different
statistics. I think it doesn't matter if the statistics case-2 is
larger
than the case-1 (default). I think as long as the statistical
samples
are different, they fall in the category of Barlow test. So both
looser
and tighter cuts would fall under Barlow rejection.
For now, is it possible for you to update the systematic error, I
mean
updating the one from event plane reference? That's the one causing
large difference.
Thanks and regards,
subhash
On 2022-04-01 11:44 AM, Cameron Racz wrote:
Hi Subhash,
Oh I see what you mean. So the cuts that produce a smaller subset
of
data accepted should be used and verified with the Barlow check.
Half
of my variations do loosen the cuts wider or higher than the
default
values, so from what you’re saying these variations should not
have
been considered and could have messed up my Barlow checks. If that
is
true I can just omit these looser variations are re-do the Barlow
checks.
I agree that the sub-event variation does not produce a subset of
events, it would be the same. And yes I believe the Barlow check
would
reject this variation for all but centralities except for the most
peripheral.
Cameron Racz
Ph.D. Candidate
Heavy-ion Physics Group
University of California, Riverside
On Mar 31, 2022, at 11:18 PM, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:
Hi Cameron,
Let me elaborate a bit here with an example of vz cuts.
Let's say you calculate v1 wrt default vz (+/- 30 cm) and you get
100 M events, let's call this case-1. For systematics you make it
tighter to +/- 10 cm and you get 70 M events, call this case-2.

You

calculate systematic from case 1 and 2. So this smaller number #

of

events can cause statistical fluctuation on top of systematic
variation. So what Barlow suggest to check whether the variation
with +/-30 cm and +/-10 cm are consistent within expected
statistical fluctuation or not. If it is consistent withing

expected

statistical fluctuation, then don't consider it as systematic. My
understanding is this is what you are doing for all your

systematic

variation.
What I am saying is that changing the event plane reference plane

is

not changing your statistical sample of events, it is same number

of

events just the event-plane reference is different. So it should

not

fall under this category of Barlow rejection based on statistical
fluctuation. So my question is does this Barlow check pass or

fail

for EP sub-events systematic for central and peripheral bins.
Because this is the dominant source in your peripheral bins. What

I

wanted to know whether Barlow rejects EP sub-events systematic in
central collisions, but accepts it for peripheral bin. Do you get

my

point?
Thanks and regards,
Subhash
On 2022-04-01 10:59 AM, Cameron Racz wrote:
Hi Subhash,
I see, so when I make a variation on a cut, I should analyze a
smaller
sample of the data. Is that correct? I am currently using the

entire

dataset for every variation, so perhaps that would make my
systematics
underestimated. Do you have an idea about how small of a subset

of

the
data I should use?
And for the eta-sub event variation, would this mean I should

remove

that variation altogether? At the moment that is the only source

of

systematic uncertainty I have (it affects the most peripheral

events

the most, hence the spike in uncertainties), but perhaps I would
have
other sources if I needed to correct my Barlow check.
Cameron Racz
Ph.D. Candidate
Heavy-ion Physics Group
University of California, Riverside
On Mar 31, 2022, at 10:45 PM, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:
Dear Cameron,
Ok, I want to understand whether or not the Barlow test you are
performing can underestimate (overestimate) the errors in your
central (peripheral) bins.
What I mean here is for example if you have apply tighter vz
selection for your systematic variation, the data sample of

tighter

vz sample is a sub-sample of your default vz case. As per my
understanding, you should perform Barlow test for such kind of

cases

where statistical samples are different. I think nhits cuts etc
could fall in that category. But I think the variation of eta-sub
events (which is a reference plane) should not be included in

Barlow

rejection test. What do you think?
Thanks and regards,
Subhash
On 2022-04-01 10:27 AM, Cameron Racz wrote:
Hi Subhash,
Yes for every cut in that presentation you linked I ran the full
analysis with a higher setting and a lower setting, separately. I
also
only ran with one variation at a time. I then performed the

Barlow

check for every cut. For the vz cut, for example, I look at the
average Delta/sigma_Delta (from that presentation) that includes

the

results from the higher and lower vz cut. So for each cut, that
average includes both the high and low settings, and is averaged
over
all bins of v3 plots (most of which are not being shown in the
presentation).
I’m not totally sure if this answers your last statement about
needing a sub-sample, but hopefully it clarifies things. I’m
interested to know what you mean by “sub-sample of the default

cut

settings” if you could explain that a little more.
Thanks,
Cameron Racz
Ph.D. Candidate
Heavy-ion Physics Group
University of California, Riverside
On Mar 31, 2022, at 10:02 PM, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
wrote:
Dear Cameron,
Thanks for considering our suggestion.
Actually the sudden jump of systematics for peripheral bins

catches

the eye. I have a follow up question on the estimation of the
systematic uncertainty. I see you did a Barlow check and assigned
systematics if it passed the check.

(https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/CRacz_3GeV_prelimUpdate.pdf).

Do you perform this check for all the analysis cuts variation? It

is

not clear from your slides. This check should only be performed,

if

the statistical sample of systematic variation is a sub-sample of
the default cut settings (e.g. loose and stricter vz cut). Can

you

please clarify on this.
Thanks and regards,
Subhash
On 2022-04-01 07:50 AM, Cameron Racz wrote:
Hello all,
Thank you for the comments on my poster. I’ve incorporated the
changes suggested from the google doc and meeting and the new

poster

slides (version 2) can be found here

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/Quark-Matter-2022/Event-Plane-Correlated-Triangular-Flow-sqrtsNN-30-GeV-AuAu-Collision

For the questions on the systematics for v3 vs rapidity with
symmetry
across mid-rapidity (center of slide 4), the 0-10% centrality and
10-40% centrality points do have systematic errors but they are

too

small to show up on the plot. We considered the suggestions to
estimate larger systematic uncertainties for 10-40% with linear

fits

but we did not see a statistically legitimate way to do that. The
current plan will be to pursue a more detailed study of

systematics

after Quark Matter.
I did however include these fits in estimating the uncertainty in

my

measurement of the slope dv3/dy. I used fits on either side of
mid-rapidity to estimate the slopes, and found those two values

had

a
percent difference of about 20%. Since my measurement was dv3/dy
=-0.025, my 20% estimate of the uncertainty is +-0.005 and this

has

been put in the summary slide 5.
Cameron Racz
Ph.D. Candidate
Heavy-ion Physics Group
University of California, Riverside
On Mar 30, 2022, at 9:08 PM, subhash via Star-fcv-l
<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
Dear All,
Thanks everyone for joining the discussion.
This a important reminder, please consider all the suggestions

you

received during the meeting, update your slides/posters/figures

in

the Drupal, go through the google doc and consider comments
whichever is applicable, send the homework slides/comparisons to
this email thread as early as possible. Here is the link to the
recordings of our meeting and also posted in the meeting page.
Recording:

https://stonybrook.zoom.us/rec/share/z5eTtFZ4yD0JriCV-UiEYviMAEJnop-IK2H_VZVHAvS71p0INvxNrxG78fS3Y97k.n0XnfapgIXnBPxh7
[1]

[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]
google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XgLXQW1zIqp5qTr8n9xoesOOlmHmu1a9zUvkXVPQ7II/edit?usp=sharing
[2]

[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
Thanks and regards,
Jiangyong, Prithwish and Subhash
On 2022-03-30 06:06 PM, subhash wrote:
Dear All,
This is a gentle reminder about today's FCV meeting for QM poster
approval at 11.30 am EST. The agenda is here:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/jjiastar/bulkcorr
You can post your comments/suggestions/edits to each poster here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XgLXQW1zIqp5qTr8n9xoesOOlmHmu1a9zUvkXVPQ7II/edit?usp=sharing
[2]

[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
Thanks and regards,
Jiangyong, Prithwish and Subhash
On 2022-03-29 10:37 AM, subhash wrote:
Dear All,
We will have a special FCV meeting on March 30 Wednesday starting
11.30 am EST (NY time) to go through the QM posters from FCV

group.

We
will have 5 minute for each poster + discussions, if needed. We
suggest you to make 5 slides for your presentation that we can go
through. We will collect cosmetic comments in a google doc, will

be

shared during the meeting. We request you, especially senior FCV
members, to join this meeting. Here is the tentative agenda.
Kosuke,
Takafumi,
Xingrui,
Diyu,
Li-ke,
Zuowen,
Edwin,
Priyanshi,
Rishabh,
Prabhupada,
Jagbir,
Xiaoyu,
Ding,
Cameron,
Chunjian,
Yicheng,
Jiangyong
We will use our regular zoom room.

https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/95735410810?pwd=M2JRZDBDSng4MG5SYmx6dlppYXhLZz09
[3]

[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[3]
Meeting ID: 957 3541 0810
Passcode: 486227
Thanks and regards,
Jiangyong, Prithwish and Subhash
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l
Links:
------
[1]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/rec/share/z5eTtFZ4yD0JriCV-UiEYviMAEJnop-IK2H_VZVHAvS71p0INvxNrxG78fS3Y97k.n0XnfapgIXnBPxh7__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!S4vfJBvfSdbJvy1bKseaLwsiSZXoTJuFBS_RsYhcQUgftQAxGwIzH0NxonjkK3FRd-kP7qg$

[2]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XgLXQW1zIqp5qTr8n9xoesOOlmHmu1a9zUvkXVPQ7II/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!S4vfJBvfSdbJvy1bKseaLwsiSZXoTJuFBS_RsYhcQUgftQAxGwIzH0NxonjkK3FR-RNAUeE$

[3]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/95735410810?pwd=M2JRZDBDSng4MG5SYmx6dlppYXhLZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!S4vfJBvfSdbJvy1bKseaLwsiSZXoTJuFBS_RsYhcQUgftQAxGwIzH0NxonjkK3FRaHqZ834$

Links:
------
[1]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/rec/share/z5eTtFZ4yD0JriCV-UiEYviMAEJnop-IK2H_VZVHAvS71p0INvxNrxG78fS3Y97k.n0XnfapgIXnBPxh7__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!T606Y0QsYS0ijrg68ld9yElCstOSWe4CJ3bE9BtmzYDpbKegd5ayu2H6IZ7W9rgW2mdlRBI$

[2]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XgLXQW1zIqp5qTr8n9xoesOOlmHmu1a9zUvkXVPQ7II/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!T606Y0QsYS0ijrg68ld9yElCstOSWe4CJ3bE9BtmzYDpbKegd5ayu2H6IZ7W9rgWNsyr-pI$

[3]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/95735410810?pwd=M2JRZDBDSng4MG5SYmx6dlppYXhLZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!T606Y0QsYS0ijrg68ld9yElCstOSWe4CJ3bE9BtmzYDpbKegd5ayu2H6IZ7W9rgWQxlZR7g$

Links:
------
[1]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/rec/share/z5eTtFZ4yD0JriCV-UiEYviMAEJnop-IK2H_VZVHAvS71p0INvxNrxG78fS3Y97k.n0XnfapgIXnBPxh7__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!VW0iY0O2lto7LLNdjyYU7Tz1fNBURsPdhAsBn6aflJ1FK-PsXDF7OnhFbc4AtrX143qDFyY$

[2]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XgLXQW1zIqp5qTr8n9xoesOOlmHmu1a9zUvkXVPQ7II/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!VW0iY0O2lto7LLNdjyYU7Tz1fNBURsPdhAsBn6aflJ1FK-PsXDF7OnhFbc4AtrX1BEcfJFU$

[3]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/95735410810?pwd=M2JRZDBDSng4MG5SYmx6dlppYXhLZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!VW0iY0O2lto7LLNdjyYU7Tz1fNBURsPdhAsBn6aflJ1FK-PsXDF7OnhFbc4AtrX1hygyfj8$

Links:
------
[1]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/rec/share/z5eTtFZ4yD0JriCV-UiEYviMAEJnop-IK2H_VZVHAvS71p0INvxNrxG78fS3Y97k.n0XnfapgIXnBPxh7__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!QdC11qRpC0AsM5vupgDEjBsKwhNtSA-yKZItkh5mPxDawQ-jrRmB9rij9dnIr13k5jwSZao$

[2]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XgLXQW1zIqp5qTr8n9xoesOOlmHmu1a9zUvkXVPQ7II/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!QdC11qRpC0AsM5vupgDEjBsKwhNtSA-yKZItkh5mPxDawQ-jrRmB9rij9dnIr13kCoS9Jbg$

[3]

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/95735410810?pwd=M2JRZDBDSng4MG5SYmx6dlppYXhLZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!QdC11qRpC0AsM5vupgDEjBsKwhNtSA-yKZItkh5mPxDawQ-jrRmB9rij9dnIr13k2xL6lv4$
--
Cameron Racz
Links:
------
[1]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/rec/share/z5eTtFZ4yD0JriCV-UiEYviMAEJnop-IK2H_VZVHAvS71p0INvxNrxG78fS3Y97k.n0XnfapgIXnBPxh7__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!XTBY0UZaRxcyWavT6QmR0PLaSLTgRSyN4T4HLRRK8xeQ-tTYGRowZcGyl32MeZNPjwfEctQ$
[2]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XgLXQW1zIqp5qTr8n9xoesOOlmHmu1a9zUvkXVPQ7II/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!XTBY0UZaRxcyWavT6QmR0PLaSLTgRSyN4T4HLRRK8xeQ-tTYGRowZcGyl32MeZNPN87Z0xQ$
[3]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/95735410810?pwd=M2JRZDBDSng4MG5SYmx6dlppYXhLZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!XTBY0UZaRxcyWavT6QmR0PLaSLTgRSyN4T4HLRRK8xeQ-tTYGRowZcGyl32MeZNPOTmVUnE$
Links:
------
[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/rec/share/z5eTtFZ4yD0JriCV-UiEYviMAEJnop-IK2H_VZVHAvS71p0INvxNrxG78fS3Y97k.n0XnfapgIXnBPxh7__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Sq3znP5pup3bVqudDZs8jMdeZ0E7HuOwUw-KqQa12Yr2Z5naEISZDP0_M9ZqfJO3TZZGTcU$
[2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XgLXQW1zIqp5qTr8n9xoesOOlmHmu1a9zUvkXVPQ7II/edit?usp=sharing__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Sq3znP5pup3bVqudDZs8jMdeZ0E7HuOwUw-KqQa12Yr2Z5naEISZDP0_M9ZqfJO3JZNdTX8$
[3] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stonybrook.zoom.us/j/95735410810?pwd=M2JRZDBDSng4MG5SYmx6dlppYXhLZz09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Sq3znP5pup3bVqudDZs8jMdeZ0E7HuOwUw-KqQa12Yr2Z5naEISZDP0_M9ZqfJO3hZO18LY$