STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Takafumi Niida <niida AT bnl.gov>]

Dear Ankita,

Thanks for updating the poster. Looks good to me. Two more minor comments below.

Summary

- show -> shows

- First measurements…looks -> First measurements…look

With these addressed, I sign off. If you haven’t heard any further suggestion for the next a few hours, you can go ahead with this revised poster. Also, please remove the older versions in drupal. Enjoy the conference.

Best regards,

Takafumi

On Feb 7, 2023, at 20:49, Ankita Nain <nainankita55555 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hello all,

Thank you so much for the comments and suggestions.

Please find the modified version of my poster at same link:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/62448

Kindly let me know about further changes.

Best Regards,

Ankita

On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 13:06, Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT icloud.com> wrote:

Hi Takafumi,
   I agree. For now I think we can scale the y-axis according to our proposal.

In future we can vary the cuts and do a test. In principle, for differential plots we should first fit the data for every q2 bin for each systematic variation and only quote systematic uncertainty in the final fit parameter (intercept e.g.). If we first estimate the systematics error for points on these plots and then fit, we will not get the correct systematic uncertainty on the fit parameter.

Your suggestion about printing the updated plot on a small paper and pasting it on the poster is a good option. I hope the venue has some small printer somewhere.

Best,
Prithwish



Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 6, 2023, at 11:04 PM, Takafumi Niida <niida AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Oh our emails has just crossed. Anyway Ankita please work on the suggested changes by Prithwish.
>
>> On Feb 7, 2023, at 16:02, Takafumi Niida <niida AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Prithwish,
>>
>> It was just an example of a counter argument. If the systematic uncertainty is huge (which you think will not be true based on your experience but not from the study with data), one could not conclude any dependence.
>>
>> I agree with your and Rongrong’s suggestion. Ankita, if you agree, please work on updating the plots.
>>
>> Fig. 7: pick up one or two plots and scale dv2 with <v2>
>> Fig. 8: pick up one or two centrality bins, scale slope with <slope> (and replace v2 with q2 bin).
>>
>> The conference has started today right? If you already printed the poster, put a paper showing updated plots on Results part.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Takafumi
>>
>>>> On Feb 7, 2023, at 10:32, Ma, Rongrong <marr AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Prithwish
>>>
>>> Do we understand why ESE seems to work beyond 20-30%, but not in 0-10%?
>>>
>>> One reason I am not comfortable releasing these as preliminary is that these results seem to have just been discussed in the focus group, not in the PWG. Is that true? Has there been an official request of preliminary figures to the PWG or this is triggered by our questions/comments?
>>>
>>> I think your suggestion of "We can further take out more physics info from these plots keeping the ESE part intact. We can scale Fig.7 by the <v_2> to show the linear dependence. For Fig.8 we divide the y-axis by the <slope>. " could work. In that way, we do not need a preliminary label. You can also just pick one or two centrality bins instead of 6-7 to illustrate the main point.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Rongrong
>>>
>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 7:41 PM, Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Takafumi,
>>>> I guess from Fig.8 it seems the ESE does not work for some centralities. But beyond 20-30% it’s hard to fit the slope vs. v2 data with a constant (pol0) fit. The change of slope between the two extreme q_2 bins is significant. That’s why we’re saying the approach looks promising. We can make the statement stronger.
>>>>
>>>> If we are not comfortable releasing this plot, we can show one centrality and replace v_2 with the q_2 bin number on the x-axis.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Prithwish
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prithwish Tribedy
>>>> Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory
>>>> Upton, NY 11973, USA
>>>> Phone: +1 631-344-8904, 631-344-3853
>>>> Fax: +1 631-344-4206
>>>> E-mail: ptribedy AT icloud.com
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 6:53 PM, Takafumi Niida <niida AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Prithwish,
>>>>>
>>>>> If I try to be more strict intentionally for looking at the plot and wording, how can we know the slope changes with q2 or v2 without any major systematic uncertainty? Therefore how can we know ESE works more than current statistical uncertainty?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Takafumi
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-02-07 08:17, Prithwish Tribedy wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Rongrong,
>>>>>> When we bin the data in q_2 (and A_ch in this case) bins the
>>>>>> statistical uncertainties dominate so we don’t present the
>>>>>> systematics.
>>>>>> The idea was to present partial information for this poster to
>>>>>> demonstrate the ESE method. The results including all the q_2 bins are
>>>>>> not presented. The mean <v_2> and the inclusive slope for a given
>>>>>> centrality are not presented. So, one cannot obtain a CMW fraction
>>>>>> from the information presented here. Also, the ESE must demonstrate
>>>>>> the <v_3> intercept must vanish using the same approach to claim CMW.
>>>>>> Maybe we should explicitly write it down (we discussed this in the
>>>>>> meeting that v_3 results should be compared).
>>>>>> We can further take out more physics info from these plots keeping the
>>>>>> ESE part intact. We can scale Fig.7 by the <v_2> to show the linear
>>>>>> dependence. For Fig.8 we divide the y-axis by the <slope>.
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Prithwish
>>>>>> Prithwish Tribedy
>>>>>> Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory
>>>>>> Upton, NY 11973, USA
>>>>>> Phone: +1 631-344-8904, 631-344-3853
>>>>>> Fax: +1 631-344-4206
>>>>>> E-mail: ptribedy AT icloud.com
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 5:22 PM, Ma, Rongrong <marr AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Prithwish
>>>>>>> We can release preliminary results with only statistical errors if
>>>>>>> systematic uncertainties are negligible compared them. In other
>>>>>>> words, systematic uncertainties are also estimated in some way.
>>>>>>> Reading the poster again, I am a bit confused by your statements
>>>>>>> that no physics conclusion can be made from Fig. 8. In Fig. 7,
>>>>>>> Delta_v2 vs. A_ch is shown. According to the Introduction section,
>>>>>>> the slope (r) encodes information about CMW. In the Motivation
>>>>>>> section, it says CMW fraction can be obtained based on the slope and
>>>>>>> intercept of r vs. v2 which is shown in Fig. 8. It seems like many
>>>>>>> physics can be extracted from these figures. What do I miss? Are
>>>>>>> there additional corrections needed?
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>> Rongrong
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 4:54 PM, Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT icloud.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Rongrong,
>>>>>>> I guess the rule is a preliminary plot needs systematics we must
>>>>>>> have it before releasing it. However, can’t we have preliminary
>>>>>>> label without it? We can label “statistical uncertainty only”.
>>>>>>> Ankita can correct me. Fig.7 is just for one centrality and Fig.8
>>>>>>> have all the centralities. The fact that the slope goes down with v2
>>>>>>> is a demonstration that ESE is working. Even if ESE works no physics
>>>>>>> conclusion can be made with the numbers even if someone extract
>>>>>>> something from the plots. This is what we discussed and agreed in
>>>>>>> the focus group meeting.
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Prithwish
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 1:29 PM, Ma, Rongrong <marr AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>  Hello Prithwish
>>>>>>> Thanks for your explanation. I see what you mean. So these figures
>>>>>>> are really intermediate steps. In that case, I am not sure if we
>>>>>>> want to label them as preliminary since there aren't any systematic
>>>>>>> uncertainties. On the other hand, I am wondering if one can have
>>>>>>> some clever labelling of Fig. 7 such that we can show the linear
>>>>>>> relation without showing the actual Delta_v2 values which have
>>>>>>> physics meanings. I am also not sure if Fig. 8 is needed since no
>>>>>>> conclusions are drawn from it.
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>> Rongrong
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 3:29 PM, Prithwish Tribedy <ptribedy AT icloud.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> No I meant the systematics should not appear on these plots. To get
>>>>>>> the systematics of the final observable, these fitting plots needed
>>>>>>> to be repeated for various cut variations. Each time we will get one
>>>>>>> number from these plots (the intercept at zero v2) and the variation
>>>>>>> of that number will lead to the systematic error. There’s no point
>>>>>>> to put systematics on these plots.
>>>>>>> We can approve these as STAR Preliminary and not change in future.
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Prithwish
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 12:11 PM, Ma, Rongrong <marr AT bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>  Hello Prithwish
>>>>>>> I think one should label a figure as preliminary as long as some
>>>>>>> physics can be extracted from it even though the extracted physics
>>>>>>> might not be final goal. I will leave it to PWG to decide whether
>>>>>>> these figures can be approved as preliminary. If so, those
>>>>>>> additional information, as you mentioned, needs to be added.
>>>>>>> For the systematic uncertainties, do you mean that they are
>>>>>>> negligible compared to statistical errors?
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>> Rongrong
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Prithwish Tribedy
>>>>>>> <ptribedy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Rongrong,
>>>>>>> These are physics plots but show intermediate steps to get to
>>>>>>> something meaningful. I don't know if we can call them STAR
>>>>>>> Preliminaries.
>>>>>>> In principle, someone can scan the data and find the intercept from
>>>>>>> Fig.8. To be on the safe side we can call them STAR Preliminary. But
>>>>>>> we do not need systematics on this plot (even if we want to publish
>>>>>>> exactly this version in a paper). We have discussed these in the CME
>>>>>>> focus group meeting.
>>>>>>> One thing I missed. On Fig.7 we should mention the centrality,
>>>>>>> collision energy and system (+Add STAR Preliminary if we agree)
>>>>>>> One Fig. 8 we should add collisions energy, system (+Add STAR
>>>>>>> Preliminary)
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Prithwish
>>>>>>> On 2023-02-06 13:47, Ma, Rongrong wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Conveners
>>>>>>> As we are reviewing Ankita's poster, we noticed that the two figures
>>>>>>> shown in the Results section present physics results but have no
>>>>>>> STAR
>>>>>>> preliminary label. Also, there are no systematic uncertainties on
>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>> points. We want to check with you if these figures have been
>>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>> and approved in the PWG as preliminary. If so, have we checked that
>>>>>>> statistical errors dominate over systematic uncertainties? What is
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> physics message of Fig. 8? Thanks.
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>> Rongrong
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2023, at 14:51, webmaster--- via Star-talks-l
>>>>>>> <star-talks-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear star-talks-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>>> Ankita Nain (nainankita55555 AT gmail.com) has submitted a material
>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>> review, please have a look:
>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/ICPAQGP-2023/Extraction-CMW-fraction-event-shape-engineering-AuAu-collisions-%E2%88%9AsNN-200-
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
>>>>>>> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Star-talks-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Star-talks-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-talks-l [2]
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Star-talks-l mailing list
>>>>>>> Star-talks-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-talks-l
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Star-talks-l mailing list
>>>>>> Star-talks-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-talks-l
>>>>>> Links:
>>>>>> ------
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/presentations/ICPAQGP-2023/Extraction-CMW-fraction-event-shape-engineering-AuAu-collisions-%E2%88%9AsNN-200-
>>>>>> [2] https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-talks-l
>>>>
>>>
>>
>