STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Alexey Povarov <povarovas AT gmail.com>]

Dear Subhash,

Thank you for comments, I implemented them:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ASPovarov_NUCLEUS_2022_pres_ver3.pdf

I compared our own NCQ scaling results with those published from:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/publications/disappearance-partonic-collectivity-3-gev-auau-collisions-rhic
Slides attached below.
I think that the differences arise due to the different centrality of our results and published.

Best regards,
Alexey 

пн, 4 июл. 2022 г. в 04:01, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>:

Dear Alexey,

Thanks for the updated slides and the link. I have two comments:

One general comment is that you have a mix of BES-I and BES-II results
across your slides. Although you mention it in slide#4, but if someone
look at individual figures, they might not have this information. So if
you could mention in individual relevant slides, for example e.g. 27 GeV
(BES-II), that might be helpful.

27 GeV BES-II NCQ scaling for pi, K and p v2 in 10-40% centrality is
recently published here:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/publications/disappearance-partonic-collectivity-3-gev-auau-collisions-rhic
I saw that you don't have an overlap of centrality with this published
paper, but is there a way you can compare with these results, just for a
consistency check?

I sign off, once these are addressed.

Thanks and regards,
Subhash



On 2022-07-02 12:01 AM, Alexey Povarov wrote:
> Dear Subhash,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> These v2 and v3 measurements have already been shown and have received
> the status of preliminary. Here is the link to the v2 and v3
> preliminary:
>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/gnigmat/v2-and-v3-preliminary
> In our analysis we used 27 GeV from BES-II and other energies from
> BES-I. I added this on slide#4.
>
>> slide#5: It would be good to indicate BES-I vs BES-II. For BES-I
> resolutions, are you using published values or, are they from your own
> analysis?
>> slide#6: Are these v2 values from published results? If yes, please
> add the journal reference.
>
> We used event plane resolutions and v2 values from our own analysis.
>> slide#7: How do you calculate integrated v2, would be good to
> indicate them like you do on slide#6. Do you use corrected pt spectra
> for example?
> I added the definition of v_int like on slide#6. We have not applied
> any corrections for these values.
>> slide#9: Is there a way you can quantify the quality of scaling?
>
> We are working on it and it will be discussed at the PWG when results
> will be ready.
> I implemented your comments. You can find slides here:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/ASPovarov_NUCLEUS_2022_pres_ver2_0.pdf
>
> Best regards,
> Alexey
>
> пт, 1 июл. 2022 г. в 05:35, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>:
>
>> Dear Alexey,
>>
>> Nice results. I have following comments to your slides:
>>
>> You have three duplicate entries in Drupal. I am discarding the
>> following ones:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60123
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60124
>>
>> General:
>> Is this triangular flow measurements are new preliminaries that will
>> be
>> shown for the first time? If yes, could you please provide us a
>> document
>> with a following format:
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Prelim_Request_template.pdf
>>
>> It would be good into indicate BES-I/BES-II in all the relevant
>> results
>> and slides. Recently STAR released a lot of BES-II measurements, so
>> it
>> would help distinguish BES-I and BES-II.
>>
>> Title: You can indicate BES-I here as well.
>>
>> slide#3: Probably you can apply formatting to the bullets, so the
>> words
>> will have equal spacing.
>> baryons then mesons --> baryons than mesons
>>
>> slide#5: It would be good to indicate BES-I vs BES-II. For BES-I
>> resolutions, are you using published values or, are they from your
>> own
>> analysis?
>>
>> slide#6: Are these v2 values from published results? If yes, please
>> add
>> the journal reference.
>> "Elliptic flow is more dependent on centrality than triangular flow"
>> -->
>> Elliptic flow has stronger dependence on centrality than triangular
>> flow
>>
>> slide#7: How do you calculate integrated v2, would be good to
>> indicate
>> them like you do on slide#6. Do you use corrected pt spectra for
>> example?
>>
>> slide#8: Indicate BES-I and BES-II in relevant figures.
>> First measurement of identified particle v3 at BES energies.
>>
>> slide#9: You can also add scaling holds better for particles than
>> anti-particles. Is there a way you can quantify the quality of
>> scaling?
>>
>> slide#10&11: positively charged particle species
>>
>> v3 results (not corrected for efficiency) --> Do you expect any
>> significant change in v3 due to application of efficiency. If not,
>> you
>> can change this "not corrected for efficiency" to a normal (not
>> bold)
>> font.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Subhash
>>
>> On 2022-06-30 05:53 AM, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>> Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>
>>> Alexey Povarov (povarovas AT gmail.com) has submitted a material for
>> a
>>> review,
>>> please have a look:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60125
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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

Attachment: comparison_of_NCQ_NUCLEUS_2022.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document