STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Shengli

These F parameters are determined for the pairs, so they need to be applied on the

“vnn = vn*vn”, (not on the vn), so you would need to apply the same subtraction in both 

“reference pT pair” and “combined pT pair” correlation functions. We would also like to 

see this in the form of the correlation function as associate per trigger normalization for 

c0 and near-side methods and as unity normalization for c1 and template fitting, with and 

without including the subtracted part etc. Please try to convince us and to show how various 

subtraction methods really work for both cases, at least for both “reference pT pair” and 

“combined pT pair”, possibly a few different pT choices for the combined pairs. I’m still 

trying to understand the amazing agreement among c1, c0 and near-side methods, which 

could really be happening accidentally, though. 

The choice of your TPC-EPD method, that you are requesting for preliminary in your p11 

and p12, is in deed reasonable and would be robust, so it’s nice to include as a part of 

preliminary, but excluding the other choice of results that you have shown in your back-up 

slides on p25-p27, are somewhat artificial, just by picking up one similar (and/or slightly 

smaller) answer compared to the main TPC-TPC method. While your p26-p27 (and p25) 

methods gives somewhat larger (and smaller) results, depending on the amount of 

de-correlation (and non-flow) in the denominator.  Another reason why your choice of 

TPC-EPD results are mostly consistent with TPC-TPC method is because it is mostly 

determined by the TPC-TPC correlation which goes to the numerator of your TPC vn 

results for both cases A) and B). So to me, your comparison between TPC-EPD and 

TPC-TPC method in p11 is a kind of consistency check, which has mostly same information. 

The comparison including p25-p27 would become meaningful. 

Best regards, ShinIchi 

On Aug 10, 2023, at 1:56, Shengli Huang <shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Dear ShinIchi,

    The ratio of c0/c0 and c1/c1 are dilute factors, the vnsub=vn(cent)-F*vn(peri).

The c0 and c1 ratio or F are similar therefore the c0 and c1 methods

are so close.

Thanks!

Shengli

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 12:41 PM EsumiShinIchi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Shengli, thanks for the plot on the zoom chat. The following are 

the comments from the window. Best regards, ShinIchi

The blue is c0/c0, not c0/c1? But this alone does not really tell us the 

subtracted results are in deed similar or not… I think we would like to 

see some example dphi correlation functions with including subtracted 

parts etc…

On Aug 9, 2023, at 16:18, EsumiShinIchi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

Dear Shengli

Thanks for the nice studies. I find the last 3 pages in your back-up slides 

are one of the most important/interesting information containing the non-flow 

and de-correlation, that explains the difference to the phenix method… 

Could you also show one additional result with two inner parts of EPD 

TPC-EPDeIn-EPDwIn, if you have done that, in stead of (in addition to) the 

last page (inner+outer), that includes the previous page (outer). Anyway, 

thanks again. Please consider including them as a part of your preliminary 

requests.  

Dear Cameron

I agree with you about showing both the measured v3 as well as the 

even and odd components, where you mentioned the even component has 

larger errors (relative to the even magnitude), since you expand the axis 

a lot just for the even (right) plot, but they are comparable to the odd 

components in absolute errors as they are from the same measurement, 

right? So I would make the vertical axis range closer between the two, 

for example, [-0.024, 0.024] for the odd and [-0.012, 0.012] for the even. 

Best regards, ShinIchi

2023/08/09 14:43、Shengli Huang via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>のメール:

Dear All,

    You can find my slide here:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/slhuang/Qm2023-preliminary

Thanks!

Shengli

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 12:25 PM Cameron Racz via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi convenors,

I would like to present my preliminary request for proton v3 at 3.2, 3.5, and 3.9 GeV if there is enough time. My slides are located here:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/cracz/Preliminary-Request-v3-Protons-32-35-39-GeV

Thank you,

Cameron Racz
Ph.D. Candidate
Heavy-ion Physics Group
University of California, Riverside






> On Aug 8, 2023, at 5:12 AM, sharangrav via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear convenors,
>
> If time permits I would also like to give some update on my anisotropic flow result for fixed target energies (for QM and ISMD). Please add me to the agenda. I will post my slides soon.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Sharang
>
>
> On 2023-08-08 11:59, subhash via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> We shall have our weekly FCV PWG meeting this Wednesday (09/Aug/2023)
>> at 9:30 AM EDT. As you know the deadline for preliminary approvals is
>> the week of August 14 and submission of talk/poster to FCV PWG is
>> August 20.  Therefore, this week and next week we would like to focus
>> on Quark Matter related analysis updates and preliminary approval. We
>> would like to ask the following analyzers to present an update:
>> Zuowen, Chengdong, Xingrui, Rishabh & Shengli
>> The agenda items will be collected at:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/jjiastar/bulkcorr
>> We would also like to discuss the followings in order to assess your
>> analysis status:
>> -- list of promised results observables, collision system, beam energies
>> -- status/readiness of your analysis, new preliminary requests
>> -- any potential issues, show stoppers, centrality/embedding  etc.
>> For preliminary request you can use this template:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Prelim_Request_template.pdf
>> Zoom details are copied below.
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Prithwish, Zhenyu and Subhash
>> ZOOM LINK FOR FCV MEETING:
>> Join ZoomGov Meeting
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1612377416?pwd=V3kvcnN5ZTRLVEc4U01QWUUycDQ1UT09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqwtAGYT5f70w3JraYqUfTxjFMhpbuR0hukObepu4yf4ySSQ-P_mWolOYcil1ZhC_8_QjEF9sadU6cOXX-nrR-JD2Q$
>> Meeting ID: 161 237 7416
>> Passcode: 106847
>> One tap mobile
>> +16692545252,,1612377416#,,,,*106847# US (San Jose)
>> +16468287666,,1612377416#,,,,*106847# US (New York)
>> Dial by your location
>>        +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)
>>        +1 646 828 7666 US (New York)
>>        +1 551 285 1373 US
>>        +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose)
>> Meeting ID: 161 237 7416
>> Passcode: 106847
>> Find your local number: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/u/abVqdu5fbU__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!EqwtAGYT5f70w3JraYqUfTxjFMhpbuR0hukObepu4yf4ySSQ-P_mWolOYcil1ZhC_8_QjEF9sadU6cOXX-lql4Kq4g$
>> Join by SIP
>> 1612377416 AT sip.zoomgov.com
>> Join by H.323
>> 161.199.138.10 (US West)
>> 161.199.136.10 (US East)
>> Meeting ID: 161 237 7416
>> Passcode: 106847
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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