STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

["Robertson, Charles William" <rober558 AT purdue.edu>]

That's not entirely true. I got multiple conflicting suggestions starting at Pre-QM until now. None of which were official, written down, or explained.

I never received a single comment on drupal since the day the poster draft was uploaded.

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 7:56:42 AM
To: Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu>
Cc: Robertson, Charles William <rober558 AT purdue.edu>; STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Charles Robertson for Quark Matter 2023 submitted for review

---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Hi Fuqiang,

    Do we have the mass plots for all energies in this kinematic range in publications? I thought that was one of your requests to be made available. From the plots CWR shows one cannot get the raw rho00 numbers for which we have discrepancy with the published results, which are to understand 

That we cannot show the plot CWR had in your poster in the last version was made very clear during the preQM meeting. The poster is updated yesterday with that plot replaced and we are trying to have the poster shown in a way consistent with what we had asked before. If a version was provided earlier we could have iterated and finalized on it earlier

I am seeing this panel plot for the first time and I didn’t make that suggestion 

My understanding is there are a few posters still to be printed and the Rice printing facility is helping with that today. So if we can finalize the version  in short while CWR can get his approved version of poster printed 

thanks

Sooraj 

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:46 AM Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu> wrote:

Sooraj,

The signal to noise ratio plot is on the poster for the 200 GeV data. One can get the signal to noise ratio of the other energy from STAR publications. In principle, one can derive the raw rho00 numbers. So why do we deliberately hide? These are raw data. We’ve asked for raw inv mass distributions 10 days ago. There was nothing coming out and we were informed at very end close to QM that those cannot be made available, and now until the end you’re asking us to remove the raw numbers. This is not right! You and the conveners actually agreed several weeks ago that we only show the raw data. 

This is really late. If Rice (thank you) can print the newest version of CW poster, we can even blacken out the numbers. One can still say that from the mass distributions that the raw data are smooth, independent of energy, and nothing like the zigzag in the nature publication. 

Best regards,

Fuqiang

On Sep 5, 2023, at 7:02 AM, Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:



---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Hi Fuqiang,

   //Even without the numbers, one can in principle get to the final number. Why hide?//

One needs the signal to background ratio in addition to the shown data points to get the rho_obs numbers. Isn’t that so? So showing just the costheta plots without the S/B ratio can show the analysis progress. Or am I misunderstanding?

Sooraj 

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 1:21 AM Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu> wrote:

Dear Sooraj,

The fit number is directly from the fit. Presenting the plots with fit but deliberately hiding the fit numbers is not scientific. Even without the numbers, one can in principle get to the final number. Why hide? 

The reason you do not approve our raw data is because our raw data disagree with the other group’s raw data. But the raw inv. mass distributions from which the other group’s raw data were derived were not made available to us. Disapproving one because of inconsistency with the other which is not made available to check is not right. I hope you see the logic. 

We have made compromise to take off the raw data vs. energy plot and replace it with the <cos^2> vs. mass plots. These plots were in fact recommended by FCV convener to replace the raw data vs. energy plot. If the latest version poster CW sent can be printed at Rice for tomorrow’s poster session, we will be glad to use that version. If not, we will have to use the original poster for tomorrow’s poster presentation. I take full responsibility for this action. 

When we are up front and be open to the community, we are better off. If we hide things from the community, we will be bitten. It’s to the best interest of STAR and the field that we are completely open that the entire community is made aware of the full extent and implication of our data, before tons of time/effort/funds are spent to try to explain a potentially wrong data. This is the duty and responsibility of a scientist and a scientific collaboration. 

Best regards,

Fuqiang

On Sep 4, 2023, at 6:59 PM, Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:



---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Hi Charles,

    Thanks. In that case please remove those rho numbers from the panels 

Sooraj 

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 6:43 PM Robertson, Charles William <rober558 AT purdue.edu> wrote:

Yes, that's correct.

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 6:37:46 PM
To: Robertson, Charles William <rober558 AT purdue.edu>
Cc: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>

Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Charles Robertson for Quark Matter 2023 submitted for review

 

---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Hi Charles,

   To understand, the numbers you have on the panels in the new plot is rho_obs, which divided by the resolution numbers you have on the left box are the rho00 numbers from the removed plot, is that correct? 

thanks

Sooraj

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 6:03 PM Robertson, Charles William <rober558 AT purdue.edu> wrote:

Hello Sooraj,

Those rho00 numbers are different from the ones on the plot we removed. Those numbers are from the fit, and they were on the slides we requested preliminary for. It's my understanding that those numbers were part of the approved progress plots.

-CW

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 5:35:23 PM
To: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Robertson, Charles William <rober558 AT purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Charles Robertson for Quark Matter 2023 submitted for review

---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Hi Charles,

   Thanks for the update and new version of the poster. What are the rho00 numbers you have on the panels in your new plot? Are they the same numbers as in the plot you removed? If so, please remove these numbers 

thanks

Sooraj

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 4:47 PM Robertson, Charles William via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hello Sooraj,

As Fuqiang mentioned, we presented a consistency check using the conventional method that agreed with our poster results.  Without the requested raw distributions from the other group, we could not perform any additional checks. So, it's unclear how this discrepancy could have been resolved before QM. 

In order to move things forward, I have removed our raw rho00 vs. energy plot at the FCV convenor's recommendation. This plot has been replaced by our raw <cos^2> vs mass plots for the four energies.

The updated poster can be found in the same place. Here's the link: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/CWR-QM2023_poster_6c_0.pdf

Thanks,

-CW

---

From: Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 12:44 PM
To: Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu>
Cc: Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>; webmaster AT star.bnl.gov <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>; STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] STAR presentation by Charles Robertson for Quark Matter 2023 submitted for review

 

---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Hi Fuqiang,

    We had discussions at the pre QM specifically on CWs poster where conveners have pointed out (and the PAs agree) that the raw rho00 from CWRs analysis differs from the raw rho00 from the publication. The reason of this discrepancy is not understood and conveners, PAC and spokespersons have expressed their unwillingness to show the raw rho00 from CWRs analysis publicly before we understand the differences. This was made very clear in the discussion. The discrepancy is still an internal matter for STAR to understand and resolve

Best

Sooraj

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:34 AM Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu> wrote:

Sooraj,

You stated discussions “with the PAs conveners and spokespersons”. I checked with CW; we were not involved in those discussions. Please clarify what were discussed, and the concrete reason(s) why our raw data plot needs to be removed. 

I will respond further after seeing Rosi’s STAR overview talk. 

Best regards,

Fuqiang

On Sep 4, 2023, at 11:18 AM, Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:



---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Hi CWR,

   Following the many discussions we have had over the past week and during the pre QM meeting with the PAs conveners and spokespersons, please revise your poster with the plot comparing raw data from your analysis with the published results removed and instead with the steps of your correction procedure  (you can move some of the text on the lower box to the box now saying 'Raw Results'). Please upload your updated poster with this change so that we can sign off on it

Best,

Sooraj

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 10:30 PM webmaster--- via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,

Charles Robertson (rober558 AT purdue.edu) has submitted a material for a 
review, please have a look:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/64865

Deadline: 2023-09-03
---
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

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.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

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov

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