Thanks Qian for clarification. This one looks fine.

On 2023-09-22 06:53 AM, tc88qy wrote:
> Hi Subhash
>
> That plots may be misleading. In side 15, the rho_00 has also be
> corrected for event-plane resolution.
> I update a plot with both rho_00^obs and rho_00 in this link. Please
> check.
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Cent_0_80_pT_3_60.gif
>
> Qian Yang
>
> On 2023-09-21 23:12, subhash wrote:
>> Dear Qian,
>>
>> Can you point me to an example of such case. In your slides rho_00^obs
>> and resolution corrected seems the same ie is 0.2736 ± 0.01524 for
>> 0-80%.
>> I am looking here side 15 (left figure) and 16 (blue data point):
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230914.pdf
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Subhash
>>
>> On 2023-09-21 10:31 PM, tc88qy wrote:
>>> Hello Subhash,
>>>
>>> Yes, the event plane resolution correction has been propagated to
>>> both
>>> the central value of rho_00 and its errors.
>>> The rho_00 shown in the slides are already corrected for event-plane
>>> resolution.
>>> If it is rho_00^{obs} value in plots, I will write it as
>>> rho_00^{obs}.
>>>
>>>
>>> Qian Yang
>>>
>>> On 2023-09-21 20:11, subhash wrote:
>>>> Dear Qian,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your response. I have one more comment that I think I
>>>> missed during yesterday's discussion. Do you propagate errors on
>>>> rho_00 when you apply event plane resolution correction. The
>>>> resolution correction will amplify the deviation from 1/3, but will
>>>> also enlarge your statistical error bar. Looking at the values of
>>>> rho_00^obs and rho_00^resol-corrected in figures, it seems to me
>>>> that
>>>> error propagation is not considered. Am I correct, can you please
>>>> confirm?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>> Subhash
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-09-21 06:09 PM, tc88qy wrote:
>>>>> Hi Subhash
>>>>>    Please find my reply inline.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>> On 2023-09-21 17:56, subhash wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Qian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for this study. I have a few follow up comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. My understanding is "directly from data(Red)" is over a wider
>>>>>> pt-range and "sum over (Magenta)" is statistical weighted average
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> rho_00 vs pt, right? If the low and high pt range is same for red
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> magenta points, eg 0.3 - 6 GeV/c, then I am fine with either
>>>>>> red/magenta points to be shown.
>>>>> Right, the red data came from a wider pt-range, and sum over is
>>>>> statistical weighted average from rho_00 vs pt.
>>>>> It is the same pT range of 0.3-6 GeV/c for both case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. On your event plane, do you have any weighting factor in
>>>>>> reconstructing Q-vectors, e.g. a pt weight.
>>>>> Yes, there is a pt weight
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. BTW, in your analysis do you have any opening angle selection?
>>>>>> Why
>>>>>> I am asking is that we have seen such a cut can artificially
>>>>>> enhance
>>>>>> the signal and one has to be careful in simulation when correcting
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> such effect.
>>>>> We did not apply any opening angle selection in the analysis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>>>> Subhash
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-09-21 02:46 PM, tc88qy via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>>>   I did some study in terms of the comments I got from yesterdays
>>>>>>> fav
>>>>>>> pwg meeting. Two things are request to be check.
>>>>>>> One is the rho_00 consistence check of summing over rho_00 in
>>>>>>> pT/centrality vs the rho_00 extracted directly from data.
>>>>>>> The conclusion is that the centrality dependence is safe. By
>>>>>>> summing
>>>>>>> over in centrality, it gives a consistent results. But summing
>>>>>>> over pT
>>>>>>> do give some discrepancy which mainly due to 0.3-6 and 3-4 GeV/c
>>>>>>> range. For p_{T} dependence we may need some more to study after
>>>>>>> SPIN2023.
>>>>>>> The other one is the event plane resolution. In the slides I
>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>> |eta|< 0.5, but actually I use |eta|<1 in the analysis.
>>>>>>> I listed my cuts and event plane resolution, Subhash’s result as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as STAR blind analysis's result in the slides. It is more or less
>>>>>>> consistent with each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please look more details in this link.
>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230920.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-09-18 21:40, tc88qy via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello Subhash and all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    I want to give an update on J/psi spin alignment study in
>>>>>>>> isobar
>>>>>>>> data. This update has been shown in last week's HP-PWG meeting.
>>>>>>>> Please
>>>>>>>> find slides in this link:
>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230914.pdf
>>>>>>>>     I also got some comments from HP meeting. I did some study
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> prepared few slides after HP-PWG meeting, you can find it in
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> link:
>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230917.pdf
>>>>>>>>    If it is all ok, I want request preliminary for this study
>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>> coming SPIN2023 meeting which is next week.
>>>>>>>>    The preliminary request has been sent to HP mail list. You
>>>>>>>> can find
>>>>>>>> the slides in this link:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-18 18:26, subhash via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We shall have our weekly FCV PWG meeting this Wednesday
>>>>>>>>> (20/Sept/2023)
>>>>>>>>> at 9:30 AM EDT. If you would like to present please let us
>>>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>> Please try posting your slides by Tuesday. The agenda will be
>>>>>>>>> collected at:
>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/jjiastar/bulkcorr
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Zoom details are copied below.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>>>>>>> Prithwish, Zhenyu and Subhash
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ZOOM LINK FOR FCV MEETING:
>>>>>>>>> Join ZoomGov Meeting
>>>>>>>>> https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1612377416?pwd=V3kvcnN5ZTRLVEc4U01QWUUycDQ1UT09
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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://bnl.zoomgov.com/u/abVqdu5fbU
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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