STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[rishabh <rishabh AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear Subhash,

Thank you so much for your suggestions. I have implemented the changes 
and re-uploaded the slides here: 
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59779

Please let me know if you have any further suggestions.

Thanks and regards,
Rishabh

On 2022-06-10 14:22, subhash wrote:
> Dear Rishabh,
>
> You can remove request for preliminary tags and update your slide.
> Please also include BES-II in the relevant figures.
>
> I am also pushing it to star-talks for further review.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Subhash
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Subhash
> On 2022-06-10 03:06 PM, rishabh via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > Dear Helen,
> >
> > Thank you so much for your comments.
> >
> > Comment: IF they aren't yet approved, what is the back-up plan given
> > SQM is next week?
> >
> > We have discussed these results in the PWG and as per the discussions,
> > we were asked not to show the 14.6 GeV centrality dependence study.
> > The centrality determination for this dataset is still underway.
> > Meanwhile, I am optimistic that the rest of the results will be
> > approved. In case they are not, I will go ahead with the 54.4 and 27
> > GeV results that have already been approved.
> >
> > Comment: Whenever we show the BES-II data  I would suggest adding if
> > it is FXT of COL
> >
> > Implemented.
> >
> > Comment: I also suggest adding just that its BES-II data rather than 
> > the year.
> >
> > As per the suggestion from the conveners, I have mentioned the year
> > against the dataset. If you suggest I can change that to BES-I and
> > BES-II.
> >
> > Slide 5: You comment the EP resolution is better for the BES-II. I
> > suggest adding why, and if the improvement is as expected/better/worse
> >
> > Implemented.
> >
> > Comment: Given you call out the EPD on slide4, be prepared to answer
> > why you didn't use it in your analysis.
> >
> > The 3 GeV (FXT) analysis of hypernuclei v1 was done using the EPD.
> >
> > Comment: Given this is BES-II data and you have talked about the
> > extended rapidity range a few slides earlier, please add what rapidity
> > range the data is for. If you did not use the larger range, why not?
> >
> > Implemented. The wider eta range of TPC has been used in our analysis
> > to calculate the event plane angle. However, track selection of light
> > nuclei was done in the pseudorapidity region of -1.0 to +1.0 to remain
> > consistent with the published results from STAR.
> >
> > Slide 7: If you want to leave on the fit parameters, please make
> > bigger so they are legible. Have we really pinned the mass and width
> > down to 100 keV with that binning and statistics?
> >
> > Our focus is not on fitting parameters (we mainly focus on the large
> > statistics and significance). Also, any subsequent precise corrections
> > to mass were not made, so our mass may be inconsistent with PDG. Since
> > our focus is not on the fit parameters, we do not have to show them
> > for the time being.
> > About 100keV (for Lambda), this is just obtained from fitting due to
> > its large statistics. And this error on parameters only reflects the
> > goodness of fitting. This error has not been used in the analysis.
> >
> > Slide 8: Please add the rapidity range - I think this is important to
> > note on all BES-II data as they come out.
> >
> > Implemented.
> >
> > Slide 9: Please try to make the font size and placement the same for
> > each energy.
> >
> > Implemented.
> >
> > Slide 9: There is lots of white space on this slide. Maybe you could
> > add if the centrality dependence is as expected? How does it compare
> > to, for example, the proton or pion dependencies?
> >
> > Implemented.
> >
> > Slide 9: The 19 GeV appears stronger, is this true? If so is it 
> > expected?
> >
> > Yes, we observe a relatively higher dependence in 19.6 GeV. In the
> > future, we plan on further dividing the centrality into finer bins -
> > 0-10%, 10-30%, and 30-80% to get a more accurate picture.
> >
> > Slide 10: From the plots its hard to see, is it really as good as 10%?
> >
> > To quantify the percentage of deviation, I tried to fit the ratio plot
> > with a polynomial of degree zero (Please find the slides here for the
> > study - https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/mass_number_scaling).
> > Conservatively, we can say that the scaled elliptic flow of light
> > nuclei is consistent within 20-30% with the predictions from the mass
> > number scaling.
> >
> > Slide 10: I suggest to modify the bullet to say all light nuclei at
> > all energies measured.
> >
> > Implemented.
> >
> > Slide 11: While this is a nice measurement, with the current errors
> > its a bit of a stretch to say it follows the mass number scaling isn't
> > it?
> >
> > Yes, the statistical errors on these results are comparatively higher
> > but the linear fit to these data points still shows a mass ordering.
> >
> > Please find the updated slides here: 
> > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59779
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any further suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Rishabh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2022-06-08 20:44, Helen Caines wrote:
> > > Dear Rishabh,
> > >
> > >  Nice slides and data. A couple more comments for you to consider
> > >
> > > General: If the plots are approved please remove the red “requesting
> > > preliminary” from several of the slides. IF they aren’t yet
> > > approved, what is the back-up plan given SQM is next week?
> > >
> > > Whenever we show the BES-II data  I would suggest adding if it is FXT
> > > of COL. While for many energies its clear to use which is which, its
> > > not necessarily to those outside of STAR plus we do have some 
> > > energies
> > > from both COL and FXT so its a good idea for us to start labeling all
> > > the data from the beginning to try to avoid confusions later on.
> > >
> > > I also suggest adding just that its BES-II data rather than the year.
> > >
> > > Slide 5: You comment the EP resolution is better for the BES-II. I
> > > suggest adding why, and if the improvement is as 
> > > expected/better/worse
> > >
> > > Given you call out the EPD on slide4, be prepared to answer why you
> > > didn’t use it in your analysis.
> > >
> > > Slide 6
> > > Given this is BES-II data and you have talked about the extended
> > > rapidity range a few slides earlier, please add what rapidity range
> > > the data is for. If you did not use the larger range, why not?
> > >
> > > Slide 7: If you want to leave on the fit parameters, please make
> > > bigger so they are legible. Have we really pinned the mass and width
> > > down to 100 keV with that binning and statistics?
> > >
> > > Slide 8: Please add the rapidity range - I think this is important to
> > > note on all BES-II data as they come out. Given we plan to expand the
> > > range compared to BES-I data there will likely be plus of the same
> > > quantities over different y ranges, so we should get used to labeling
> > > this clearly.
> > >
> > > Slide 9: Please try to make the font size and placement the same for
> > > each energy.
> > > There is lots of white space on this slide. Maybe you could add if 
> > > the
> > > centrality dependence is as expected? How does it compare to, for
> > > example, the proton or pion dependencies?
> > > The 19 GeV appears stronger, is this true? If so is it expected?
> > >
> > > Slide 10: From the plots its hard to see, is it really as good as 10%
> > > I suggest to modify the bullet to say all light nuclei at all 
> > > energies
> > > measured.
> > >
> > > Slide 11: While this is a nice measurement, with the current errors
> > > its a bit of a stretch to say it follows the mass number scaling
> > > isn’t it?
> > >
> > > Slide 12: It seems that all nuclei/particles containing a strange
> > > quark are on the low side. Maybe this is worth drawing the audiences
> > > attention to?
> > >
> > > Helen
> > >
> > > ***********************
> > > Yale University
> > > Physics Dept. - Wright Lab.
> > > PO Box 208120
> > > New Haven, CT 06520
> > > 203-432-5831
> > > ***********************
> > > she/her/hers
> > > "Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass.
> > > It's about learning how to dance in the rain." - Vivian Greene
> > >
> > > > On Jun 8, 2022, at 6:15 AM, rishabh via Star-fcv-l
> > > > <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Subhash,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your quick response. I have implemented these further
> > > > suggestions from you.
> > > > Here is the link to the updated slides:
> > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59779
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again.
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Rishabh
> > > >
> > > > On 2022-06-08 15:29, subhash via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > > > Dear Rishabh,
> > > > Thanks for incorporating my suggestions. I am fine with your slides.
> > > > Two minor comments:
> > > > slide#4: √sNN (GeV)
> > > > slide#9: deuterons show
> > > > Thanks and regards,
> > > > Subhash
> > > > On 2022-06-08 05:30 PM, Rishabh Sharma wrote:
> > > > Dear Subhash,
> > > > Thank you so much for your helpful comments.
> > > > slide#4: In the datasets, you can probably indicate BES-I and
> > > > BES-II.
> > > > - Implemented
> > > > slide#5: Can you add comment on the improvement in EP resolution in
> > > > BES-II compared to BES-I? - Implemented (For a better comparison
> > > > between the BES I and BES II I am showing only 19.6 GeV resolution.
> > > > I
> > > > will put the rest in the backup)
> > > > slide#6: Are these results from 0-80% or finer centrality bins? I
> > > > would suggest to use 0-80%. Moreover, if you can replace these 14.6
> > > > GeV results with 19.6 GeV ones where the bad runs and centrality is
> > > > finalized, it would be better. But I would leave it up to you. -
> > > > Implemented (I have replaced the plots with 19.6 GeV 0-80% results)
> > > > slide#7: Can you add collision system, beam energy etc details
> > > > inside
> > > > these figures? - (I have written it on top of the figure. Are you
> > > > suggesting putting the details inside the figure?)
> > > > slide#8: Can you indicate the improvement in precision in BES-II
> > > > relative to BES-I?
> > > > Implemented
> > > > slide#9: Remove 14.6 0-30% and 30-80% plots. Mention centrality
> > > > dependent study is underway.
> > > > Implemented
> > > > slide#10: Can you use specific range of deviation, 10-20%?
> > > > Implemented
> > > > slide#13: Indicate how much Deviation of light nuclei v2 scaling is
> > > > observed.
> > > > Implemented
> > > > Please find the updated slides here:
> > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59779
> > > > Please let me know if you have further suggestions or comments.
> > > > Thanks and regards,
> > > > Rishabh
> > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 4:04 PM subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Dear Rishabh,
> > > > Nice slides.
> > > > It was recommended by the management to release only 0-80%
> > > > centrality
> > > > results for 14.6 GeV. Please remove the corresponding v2 results in
> > > > 0-30% and 30-80%.
> > > > slide#4: In the datasets, you can probably indicate BES-I and
> > > > BES-II.
> > > > slide#5: Can you add comment on the improvement in EP resolution in
> > > > BES-II compared to BES-I?
> > > > slide#6: Are these results from 0-80% or finer centrality bins? I
> > > > would
> > > > suggest to use 0-80%. Moreover, if you can replace these 14.6 GeV
> > > > results with 19.6 GeV ones where the bad runs and centrality is
> > > > finalized, it would be better. But I would leave it up to you.
> > > > slide#7: Can you add collision system, beam energy etc details
> > > > inside
> > > > these figures?
> > > > slide#8: Can you indicate the improvement in precision in BES-II
> > > > relative to BES-I?
> > > > slide#9: Remove 14.6 0-30% and 30-80% plots. Mention centrality
> > > > dependent study is underway.
> > > > slide#10: Can you use specific range of deviation, 10-20%?
> > > > slide#13: Indicate how much Deviation of light nuclei v2 scaling is
> > > > observed.
> > > > Thanks and regards,
> > > > Subhash
> > > > On 2022-05-31 11:42 AM, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > > > Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > > > Rishabh Sharma (rishabhsharma AT students.iisertirupati.ac.in) has
> > > > submitted a
> > > > material for a review, please have a look:
> > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59779
> > > > ---
> > > > 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