STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Haojie

Thanks for the plots in the other E-mail about no-kink with tight z-vertex 

cuts. Concerning the plot you made for Huan, are they really 

(ZrCut<-0.06 and RuCut>-0.052)? which would also be statistics hungry 

case, as you mentioned that you can not do what I’ve mentioned in the 

other E-mail… 

I’m asking this, because your legend does not clearly say +/-ve of values, 

as well as ">" or "<" etc, and statical errors are not much different from 

your earlier figures with cuts at their mean values…

If you say it’s difficult to cut what I’m saying due to statistics, this should also 

give a statics hungry plot with much larger statistical errors than earlier figure.  

Thank you very much for the hard work and sorry ask too many questions...

Best regards, ShinIchi

2022/04/27 16:10、haojiexu via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>のメール:

Hi Huan, 

Here is the plot under your suggestion. The red squares are the ratios you mentioned, the blue ones are the ratios for the rest of the runs.  
<ComparisonVxV4.png>

 

 

with best regards,

Haojie


On 2022-04-27 14:14, Huan Zhong Huang wrote:

Haojie,

  Instead of taking the ratios of upper and lower, will you please try
to have a look at the ratios of the RuRu for runs with <Vx> [-0.05,
-0.052] to ZrZr runs with <Vx> [-0.06, -0.062] and compare with what
you have now?

  Thanks.

  Huan

From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> On Behalf Of
haojiexu via Star-fcv-l
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 10:20 PM
To: Van Buren, Gene <gene AT bnl.gov>; 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

Hi Gene, and all,

Thank you for the plot. I also made the same plot with more stat.

As I have shown in my previous plots that the multiplicity
distribution ratios Ru(<vx> > mean)/Zr(<vx> < mean) (~65 um
differences in vx) and Ru(<vx> < mean)/Zr(<vx> > mean) (~9 um
differences in vx) are almost the same (see also the attached plot).
The result shows no track effeicecy difference at this level.

with best regards,

Haojie

On 2022-04-27 11:54, Van Buren, Gene via Star-fcv-l wrote: 

Hi, Jamie and all,

On this particular point....

On Apr 26, 2022, at 7:53 PM, James Dunlop via Star-fcv-l
<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
The beam shifts by ~40 um all the time.  It's beam steering at
that
level,
often used to level our luminosity.

I offer the following not as a contradiction, but as complementary
information on the beam positions (and I'm certainly not making any
kind of statement on noticeable impacts from beam positions on track
reconstruction efficiency)...

The mean <Vx> at z=0 for each fill (which I labeled as "x0") is
shown
in the below plot obtained from only a small fraction of the event
statistics. The colors show the two beam species. I would conclude
that whatever beam steering they were doing, they managed to get x0
consistent within a given species to within +/-15 microns
fill-to-fill. If it weren't for that consistency, we wouldn't see
the
apparent offset between the two species.

But on the core topic of this thread of tracking efficiency
differences between the two species, I do not have the confidence to
say that SpaceCharge & GridLeak distortion corrections are
consistent
between the two species at the level necessary to avoid systematic
track reconstruction efficiency differences at the 0.1% level. That
level of confidence would be difficult to achieve, in my opinion.

-Gene
_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l

<image002.jpg><image004.jpg>_______________________________________________
Star-fcv-l mailing list
Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l