STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

Dear Haijie
Thank you very much for the plots. 
Could you please re-plot the page 4 figures (x-/y- reversed axis) and as 
profile plot, 
like <V_r,x,y,z> vs RefMult? And please expand the vertical axis at least a 
few mm range...
You have indicated "< >” in the x- and y- axis labels for all 4 plots, but 
this is not the 
average, they are all event-by-event quantities, right? 
Best regards, ShinIchi

> 2022/04/25 8:03、haojiexu via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>のメール:
> 
> Dear ShinIchi, Huan, Jie, and all,
> 
> Thank you for the suggestions. The comparison between two different run 
> periods is shown on page 3 of the attached file. The correlation in RuRu 
> collision is just a coincidence, as we do not see any obvious correlations 
> for the rest of the runs.
> 
> The second page is for run-by-run distributions. I also made a plot for 
> e-by-e distributions on page 4. As I have mentioned in the last FCV 
> meeting, these distributions are due to the multiplicity-dependent vertex 
> resolutions.
> 
> Therefore, as mentioned by Fuqiang, we can not re-weight or cut events at 
> the event level due to resolutions. I then apply the cut on run level, 
> i.e., divide the events into two groups by run-by-run mean vx and vy, the 
> results are shown on page 5. The distributions are almost the same in two 
> different <vx> and <vy> groups, which confirm that no efficiency difference 
> over vx, vy variations on this level.
> 
> The mean multiplicity difference between Ru+Ru and ZrZr is about 0.2% in 
> the high multiplicity range, as I have shown in my QM talk. One bin shift 
> will cause ~0.16% differences in the mean multiplicity ratio. To achieve 
> our goal on determine the slope parameter of symmetry energy, if any effect 
> causes a difference above ~0.02%, I will consider such effect seriously. 
> The effect shown on page 5 is only about ~0.002%, negligible in our 
> measurements.
> 
> Yes, the shape differences are very important in our study and very 
> sensitive at high multiplicity range. That’s the reason we put more effort 
> into the refined centrality in isobar collisions. We found the shape 
> corrections from previous official centrality definition are quite large, 
> which will cause large sys uncertainties in our study. We then improved vz 
> corrections and now such uncertainty is negligibly small.  I think this may 
> answer Huan’s question about the efficiency effect on multiplicity 
> distribution shape at the very tail region, as the efficiency do have vz 
> dependent but only affects the high-end-point value. Here are my slides 
> from the last collaboration meeting for your reference
> 
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FCV20220216.pdf
> 
> Again, thank you for the suggestions.
> 
> With best regards,
> Haojie
> 
> 
> 
> On 2022-04-24 00:39, Wang, Fuqiang via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>> Hi, Huan, Jie,
>> Yes, cutting or reweighting events will be biasing the events.
>> Haojie’s highend point multiplicity vs Vx, Vy already showed that.
>> The vx vy distributions are mainly due to the vertex position
>> resolutions therefore dependent on event multiplicity. Cutting on them
>> is cutting on resolution. One cannot apply cuts or selection on event
>> level, but only on runs or run periods.
>> Best regards,
>> Fuqiang
>> On Apr 23, 2022, at 3:02 AM, Huan Zhong Huang via Star-fcv-l
>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>> Hi Jie,
>>> That is an interesting idea. I do not know enough about beam
>>> physics to have a firm answer. I assume that the actual beam size is
>>> much smaller than the measured Vx and Vy distributions, but the
>>> center value should be correct beam position. Therefore, the
>>> measured Vx, Vy width may be mostly due to track resolutions. Then
>>> if you only take events on one side of the resolution function in
>>> order to match the RuRu and ZrZr distributions, I do not know if it
>>> will introduce any bias.
>>> Regards,
>>> Huan
>>> From: Jie Zhao <jiezhao1119 AT hotmail.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 5:21 PM
>>> To: Huan Zhong Huang <huang AT physics.ucla.edu>; STAR Flow, Chirality
>>> and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> Cc: ShinIchi Esumi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp>
>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Haojie Xu for Quark
>>> Matter 2022 submitted for review
>>> Dear Huan, ShinIchi, Haojie,
>>> i am wondering, whether a data driven method would be helpful or
>>> not, for example,
>>> artificially weight or throw away part of the RuRu data to match the
>>> ZrZr vx/vy/vz distribution,
>>> and see how big the difference?
>>> Best regards,
>>> Jie
>>> On Apr 23, 2022, at 3:56 AM, Huan Zhong Huang via Star-fcv-l
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>> Dear Haojie and ShinIchi,
>>> Thanks for the update and sorry for the late response. It is very
>>> typical nowadays that I lag behind in my email responses.
>>> On a gross scale, I do not have any problem if you claim that there
>>> is no effect related to vertex and/or efficiency differences. But
>>> when you focus on the ratio at the very tail region, we know that
>>> the sensitivity is very much enhanced. So I have not seen any
>>> quantitative estimate that demonstrated that there is nothing to
>>> worry about.
>>> When you examine the multiplicity and the vertex positions to see
>>> if there is any correlations, you did it as a function of run
>>> number. I am afraid that this approach may not be a sensitive way.
>>> As you may know the vertex position averaged over a run contains too
>>> many effects including the z vertex and the slope parameters which
>>> may be run dependent. You may be better off to focus on data within
>>> one run. I understand that you have already done the Vz dependent
>>> corrections. So you may ask the question whether you correctly
>>> attributed the physical reason for the Vz correction and whether the
>>> correction method (for the turning point, instead of the falling
>>> shape for example) is well justified.
>>> When I suggested you to carry out quantitative systematic estimate,
>>> it probably does not make sense to you. Let me try to elaborate a
>>> little. Since you focus on the ratio of multiplicity in the tail
>>> region, you may check how the ratio changes with possible
>>> multiplicity shift (more detailed and finer steps than Yu did). Then
>>> if you decide that in order to constrain nuclear shape parameters
>>> well using the ratios in the tail region, you may decide our goal of
>>> systematic error allowed. That would be our quantitative goal for
>>> controlling the systematics for this physics measurement.
>>> Once you know the goal that you need to achieve, you may be able to
>>> examine if your Vz/Vx/Vy studies are compatible with achieving the
>>> goal. We know that the average multiplicity between Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr
>>> differ by a few counts while the average Vx and Vy are slightly
>>> different. I wondered that among these two refmult difference how
>>> much should be attributed to true shape difference and how much to
>>> run condition difference. What makes you so confident that there is
>>> no effect from vertex difference at the accuracy level that we need
>>> to achieve. If we trust the simulation package, we may have to
>>> simulate the same collisions with a slight shift in vertex positions
>>> in order to guage the sensitivity.
>>> In any case, thanks for the hard work.
>>> Regards,
>>> Huan
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of
>>> ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:58 PM
>>> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Haojie Xu for Quark
>>> Matter 2022 submitted for review
>>> Dear Haojie
>>> Thanks for the plots. I have one question.
>>> Is the second page for the entire run and event for both RuRu and
>>> ZrZr?
>>> Could you plot the 2nd page correlation just for the two run ranges
>>> for each of 2 species, where you draw 2 black lines (run ranges) in
>>> each panel of the 1st page, and plot one range for red and another
>>> range for blue points?
>>> Could you also plot each point event-by-event, not run-by-run for
>>> these two run ranges.
>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>> On Apr 22, 2022, at 10:33, haojiexu <haojiexu AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear ShinIchi, Huan, and all,
>>> Under Jiangyong's suggestion, I have plotted the run-by-run vertex
>>> distributions in both Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions, attached please
>>> find the plots. The vertex variations in each system are larger than
>>> the average difference between the two systems. I also plot the
>>> <RefMult> vs <vx>, <vy> and <vr> in each collision system. There is
>>> no evidence of efficiency difference over vx, vy variations on this
>>> level.
>>> with best regards,
>>> Haojie
>>> On 2022-04-21 20:49, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>> Dear Huan and all
>>> There were some interesting discussions about this in the PWG
>>> meeting
>>> yesterday, the results presented by Haojie in the meeting were not
>>> enough to fully answer your question (you can see his slide in the
>>> usual PWG agenda page at :
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/jjiastar/bulkcorr). One
>>> difficulty is the vertex resolution changes with centrality (track
>>> multiplicity in the tpc),  but there were few more suggestions made
>>> during the meeting, so let’s see his future updates. Do we just
>>> worry
>>> about the actual vertex position dependence of the tpc efficiency?,
>>> which is basically the homework for Haojie to see the vertex
>>> position
>>> (3D xyz vertex) dependence of efficiency (effectively number of
>>> reconstructed track for a given acceptance), Or do we also need to
>>> worry about beam tuning/focusing differences, for example, beam
>>> crossing angle difference etc between the species?
>>> One thing I forgot to ask yesterday was about the simulation test,
>>> where we used say our accuracy of tracking efficiency is of the
>>> order
>>> of 5% for the systematic error evaluation in the absolute yield
>>> measurements, which is clearly not enough for these studies, so the
>>> most of the people seem to be given up in this direction, but I
>>> remember there were some task force formed sometime ago, to revisit
>>> our accuracy of 5% on the absolute efficiency in the tpc, and to see
>>> if we can improve this or not. We need to see if there is any
>>> progress in this direction or not, too… Best regards, ShinIchi
>>> On Apr 15, 2022, at 11:42, Huan Zhong Huang <huang AT physics.ucla.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi ShinIchi and Haojie,
>>> Thanks for the discussion. To pursue the physics topic, we need to
>>> demonstrate that we have done the systematic study to the accuracy
>>> of much better than 1/(300-400) in multiplicity measurement. We may
>>> have done lots of systematic studies, but I am not aware one which
>>> showed the accuracy matched what is needed for this physics topic.
>>> It will be useful to keep this requirement in mind when you consider
>>> more studies. It would certainly be very useful to have a full geant
>>> simulation of Ru collisions with realistic beam profile and with the
>>> correct magnitude of position shifts to see any effect.
>>> Haojie: if you think that your previous results have the accuracy
>>> needed, please summarize your results/arguments in a few slides to
>>> circulate. In particular, we will be interested in why you think
>>> that you have the quantitative accuracy of 1/(300-400).
>>> Thanks. Regards,
>>> Huan
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of
>>> ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 7:50 PM
>>> To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Haojie Xu for Quark
>>> Matter 2022 submitted for review Dear Haojie Thank you for the
>>> confirmation. The question is how accurately we do know the relative
>>> efficiency difference between species, compared to the observed
>>> level of multiplicity difference of ~1/(a few 100). TPC condition
>>> itself is unchanged as we filled two beams alternatively, but the
>>> beam optics/position seems to be different. The effect coming from
>>> less than mm difference of beam using the meter size detector would
>>> be small, but we just need to make sure the effect is at lease much
>>> smaller than ~1/(a few 100) in the realistic experimental condition.
>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>> On Apr 14, 2022, at 11:35, haojiexu <haojiexu AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear ShinIchi,
>>> The efficiency corrections are not implemented yet. As we have
>>> discussed during my presentation, we plan to use the same
>>> efficiency for two isobar systems, as the accuracy may not be good
>>> enough to do it separately.
>>> with best regards,
>>> Haojie
>>> On 2022-04-14 09:29, ShinIchi Esumi via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>> Dear Haojie and all
>>> I think Huan has a point, if the tracking efficiency is really
>>> different between the two species caused by the small beam shift
>>> (or any beam related systematic difference), the beam luminosity
>>> and/or zvertex corrections for the refmult would not correct such
>>> difference, since
>>> “97 vs 98” difference remain unchanged after the corrections and
>>> this difference of “1 out of 500” that we believe that it is
>>> coming from the nuclear structure, but I‘m not sure we have ruled
>>> out any small fraction of “1” that might be coming from the beam
>>> systematics or not.
>>> Do we correct for the tracking efficiency (for the refmult)
>>> independently between two species?
>>> This might be a question of accuracy of our embedding simulation,
>>> that does use the real data, but how precisely we can reproduce
>>> the beam quality/position difference for the embedded track to be
>>> combined into the real events for each species independently. Or
>>> we might need to test this with full geant simulation with
>>> realistic beam optics/profile, to see if our TPC (with realistic
>>> holes of inactive RDOs etc) is sensitive to this or not. This is
>>> to ask ourselves, if we already know our TPC efficiency (better
>>> than ~1/500) relatively between two species, that is being
>>> questioned.
>>> Best regards, ShinIchi
>>> 2022/04/14 9:41、haojiexu via Star-fcv-l
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> のメール：
>>> Hi Huan,
>>> Thank you for your comments and interest in my QM talk. And also
>>> thank Yu for the testing on multiplicity shift, the effect of one
>>> bin offset is large but I don’t think this shift is reliable.
>>> The multiplicity ratios shown in my QM slides are not the raw
>>> multiplicity distributions. As it was done in the general centrality
>>> definition procedure, we have corrected the luminosity dependent and
>>> the multiplicity distributions in different vz bins are corrected to
>>> vz=0. I think the effect you mentioned has been taken care of by the
>>> procedures. More details of the procedure can be found in my
>>> presentation given in the centrality definition meeting:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Centrality20220301.
>>> pdf Yes, the neutron skin effect can also be obvious at
>>> peripheral collisions. One of the observables is the net charge
>>> ratios I have shown in my QM presentation.
>>> with best regards,
>>> Haojie
>>> On 2022-04-12 03:19, Huan Zhong Huang wrote:
>>> Hi Haojie et al,
>>> This is an interesting approach. I am concerned whether you have
>>> done the systematic checks to demonstrate the sensitivity of
>>> potential systematic bias to the physics conclusion. Yu Hu
>>> helped to plot the multiplicity ratio of Ru+Ru/Zr+Zr if the
>>> multiplicity of the Zr+Zr collisions is systematically offset by a
>>> few tracks.
>>> When the Zr multiplicity is shifted by one track out of 300-400
>>> tracks, the ratio changes very significantly. Therefore, it is
>>> critical that we show that there is no systematic bias between
>>> two isobar collisions even at one particle level.
>>> Because of the isobar charge difference, I tried to ask CAD what
>>> the possible magnitude of beam difference (position and collision
>>> axis).
>>> Bill Christie suggested that we should be able to get the data
>>> from reconstructed vertex distributions as a function of Z. Gene
>>> Van Buren has some data on this. He indicated that the beam
>>> position between Ru and Zr could be shifted by 40-50 microns. We
>>> may need to examine this shift with the full isobar data. In
>>> order to examine if this magnitude of beam shift will cause any
>>> systematic bias in the measured multiplicity, we may need to use
>>> GEANT simulations of the Ru+Ru collisions and shift the beam
>>> position to measure potential change in the TPC multiplicity.
>>> That would ensure that we have a good control of the
>>> systematics. There may be other approaches to use experimental
>>> data to examine the potential shift due to beam variations. But
>>> I do not know how well we can control the systematics with the
>>> experimental approach.
>>> If this potential systematic shift is real, we may have to
>>> revisit the model used for centrality definition as well.
>>> Naively I would expect that the peripheral collisions would be
>>> more sensitive to the shape and distribution of the neutron skin.
>>> In any case, this is an interesting topic. It would be good if
>>> you help evaluate these sensitivity issues. I am sorry that it
>>> took me long to catch up with many interesting QM talks and did
>>> not comment sooner.
>>> Thanks. Regards,
>>> Huan
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of
>>> haojiexu via Star-fcv-l
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:39 AM
>>> To: Chunjian Zhang <chun-jian.zhang AT stonybrook.edu>
>>> Cc: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>>> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Haojie Xu for
>>> Quark Matter 2022 submitted for review Dear Chujian, Rongrong,
>>> and all, Slide 12 has been updated with chunjian's new plot.
>>> Comments from google doc are also implemented. Here is the link
>>> to the updated slides
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QM2022_HaojieXu_v1
>>> 1.p
>>> df
>>> with best regards,
>>> Haojie
>>> On 2022-03-30 09:52, Chunjian Zhang wrote:
>>> Dear Haojie,
>>> Hello. It’s a very nice result from hydro and I am looking
>>> forward to your nice draft. Thank you~ best regards Chunjian
>>> On Mar 29, 2022, at 8:46 PM, haojiexu
>>> <haojiexu AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear Chunjian,
>>> Thank you for considering my suggestion. Actually, our
>>> hydrodynamics give the same conclusion that the two system
>>> have the same nonlinear coefficients within error, while the
>>> approximation can bias this conclusion. It is good to hear that the
>>> data show the same trend.
>>> It is interesting that the magnitude of this bias can be
>>> quantitively described by our hydrodynamic simulaitons, this
>>> may indicate the non-flow contributions are largely canceled
>>> in the ratios.  Attached please find plot from our recent work
>>> that we plan to submit to arXiv in the next few days.
>>> with best regards,
>>> Haojie
>>> On 2022-03-30 07:50, Chunjian Zhang wrote:
>>> Dear Haojie,
>>> Hello. Very nice and comprehensive slides to me.
>>> Thank you for your nice suggestions. Now we use the exact
>>> ac2{3}/<v_2^4> ratio between Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions as
>>> the equations.
>>> Please find the new plot in
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ac23_STAR_0329.
>>> pdf It will be helpful if you could use this new plot to
>>> replace the old version in the slide 12. And also change the
>>> third bullet point to “Non-linear coefficents are ideally
>>> identical in the final-state””.
>>> Thank you.
>>> The nonflow would be mostly canceled and then will not affect
>>> the double ratios in the lower panel especially from
>>> midcentral to central collisions.  If it still has residual
>>> nonflow, it may only affect peripheral region a little bit.
>>> The model study here also helps us to clarify this.  Even so,
>>> the futher relevant nonflow understanding is ongoing in our to do
>>> list.
>>> best regards
>>> chunjian
>>> On Mar 29, 2022, at 1:07 AM, haojiexu
>>> <haojiexu AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote Hi Chunjian, and all Your
>>> nice suggestions are implemented, here is the updated slides
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QM2022_HaojieXu
>>> _v1
>>> 0.pd
>>> f
>>> I am still worried about the message from lower panel of ac3 plot.
>>> Besides the non-flow effect, as I have already mentioned,
>>> the ac2{3}/v_2{2}^{4} is not exactly the non-linear coefficient.
>>> As it was just an approximation, I suggest not to extract
>>> any nonlinear coefficient at this moment. Or can you
>>> directly compare ac2{3} to <v_2^{4}> instead of v_2{2}^{4}?
>>> with best regards,
>>> Haojie
>>> On 2022-03-29 04:56, Chunjian Zhang wrote:
>>> Dear Haojie,
>>> Hello. Very nice and comprehensive slides. Please find some
>>> comments
>>> below:
>>> 1) S3:
>>> —>  v2-> v_{2}
>>> —> I guess you would like to use the new Ntrk ratio plot
>>> from the nice isobar publication.
>>> 2) S9: It would be helpful if you could add one more reference:
>>> J.Jia
>>> and C. Zhang, arXiv:2111.15559
>>> 4) S12:
>>> —> above formula, n=2, just label ac_2{3}….
>>> —> I would be helpful you could add a punchline as other
>>> slides at
>>> below: “Experimental test on non-linear coupling coefficient”.
>>> Thank you for your suggestions for the plots. The double
>>> ratio is the money plot calculated from above panels. Then
>>> the audiences would see how is the difference directly.
>>> Also, ampt calculation could reproduce the data. The
>>> detailed nonflow studies for understanding any flow
>>> observables are extramly complicated and there are no any conclusive
>>> answers yet. let’s not worry about it.
>>> best regards
>>> Chunjian
>>> On Mar 28, 2022, at 11:22 AM, haojiexu via Star-fcv-l
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>> Dear chunjian, and all
>>> The slides have been updated with suggestions from the last
>>> FCV meeting and Collaboration meeting. I also made a few minor
>>> changes.
>>> Your comments are welcome. Here is the link to my slides
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QM2022_HaojieX
>>> u_v 9.pd f I have a suggestion on ac2{3} plot in slide 12. I
>>> suggest do not show the lower panel and the value of the
>>> non-linear coefficient ratio, because the ac2{3}/v_2{2}^{4}
>>> is not exactly the non-linear coefficient, and ac2{3} is
>>> also sensitive to non-flow effect.
>>> with best regards,
>>> Haojie
>>> On 2022-03-08 23:55, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members, Haojie Xu
>>> (haojiexu AT zjhu.edu.cn) has submitted a material for a
>>> review, please have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/58778
>>> ---
>>> 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
>> <Chi.pdf>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> <Vertex.pdf>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> <Vertex.pdf>_______________________________________________
> Star-fcv-l mailing list
> Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l