STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Jie Zhao <jiezhao1119 AT hotmail.com>]

Dear Subhash,

Thanks for your nice comments and suggestions. please find the reply inline below.

s#6: For general audience, it might be good to indicate the invariant mass distribution is after mixed-event subtraction.
Are their any constraint used for f0, f2 and rho, I mean do you keep mass, width for all of them as free, or constrain them in some way? How do you constrain the blue line? Looks like the blue line do not explain the background shape. Do you have systematic error due to different background shapes along with varying normalization scales? This must have been discussed, but I might have missed those.

yes, in the text i try to indicate the invariant mass distribution after mixed-event subtraction, for the data, the distribution before the mixed-event subtraction unlikely contains useful information here.

Yes, there are come constrain, for example the rho width is fixed, and the f2 mass and width also fixed according to PDG, we do not have much sensitivity to those variables. all other variables are free parameters.

The blue line is a free parameters pol3 fit. we have used different functions for the background estimation for that purposes.

s#7: It is not clear which function you use for mass and width extraction, rel. BW or simple BW?

For the plot on slide 7, rel. BW and BW are both used, and included in the systematics.  for the second bullet, we fix the numbers from the rel. BW fit.

s#15: Correct typo: "scaling"
An error projection figure for f0 v2 and a projected n_q value would be nice, but it is up to you.

ok, thanks. i will modify it in next version.

this has been discussed in PWG, there might complications due to the upgrade of the detectors, so instead, we prefer to keep it simple currently. 

Best regards!

Jie

On Aug 29, 2022, at 14:34, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Jie,

Nice presentation. I have a few comments for your consideration:

s#6: For general audience, it might be good to indicate the invariant mass distribution is after mixed-event subtraction.
Are their any constraint used for f0, f2 and rho, I mean do you keep mass, width for all of them as free, or constrain them in some way? How do you constrain the blue line? Looks like the blue line do not explain the background shape. Do you have systematic error due to different background shapes along with varying normalization scales? This must have been discussed, but I might have missed those.

s#7: It is not clear which function you use for mass and width extraction, rel. BW or simple BW?

s#15: Correct typo: "scaling"
An error projection figure for f0 v2 and a projected n_q value would be nice, but it is up to you.

Thanks and regards,
Subhash



On 2022-08-29 11:20 AM, webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l wrote:

Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
Jie Zhao (jiezhao1119 AT hotmail.com) has submitted a material for a review,
please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/60638
Deadline: 2022-09-05
---
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