STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear Zuowen, PAs,

Thanks again for your response. We are a bit uncomfortable with this 
kaon data and feel that the present trend is beyond statistical 
fluctuation. We suggest the PAs investigate the reason for this 
discontinuity or propose some solution.

I am checking v1 versus y in smaller pt bins (Fig. 42 of AN), there is a 
non-trivial trend especially obvious at pt= 0.4-0.6 GeV. I would suggest 
to look differentially in (pt, eta) to understand the reason. Also in a 
hypothetical scenario, if we remove problematic bins (eg stay within 
y_cm < 0.5 or pt > 0.6), how would it impact our significance and 
physics message?

In the next iteration, please also circulate updated version of AN and 
draft.

Thanks and regards,
Subhash

On 2024-04-22 04:02 PM, Zuowen Liu wrote:
> Dear Subhash,
>
> Thanks a lot for your quick reply.
> Kindly find the answers in the slides attached.
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
> Zuowen for PAs
>
> ------------------ Original ------------------
>
> From:  "subhash"<subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>;
> Date:  Thu, Apr 18, 2024 01:46 PM
> To:  "Zuowen Liu"<liuzw AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>;
> Cc:  "star-fcv-l"<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;
> Subject:  Re: [Star-fcv-l] Kaon anti-flow paper draft and analysis
> notes for PWG review
>
> Dear Zuowen,
>
> Thanks for your response. I have a few follow up questions/comments:
>
> 1) Kaon v1: your negative kaon points especially at 3.5 GeV are kind
> of
> fluctuating bin by bin, they look a lot smoother in 3 GeV data. The
> systematic is also changing bin-by-bin. Since this paper is focussed
> on
> kaons, I wanted to understand more on this behavior of K+ and K-. How
> do
> you understand the current behavior.
> 2) Proton v1: I am fine with it, please update all the latest version
> of
> figures.
> 3) v1 versus invariant mass for kshort: I would suggest to check the
> variation with background shape eg first/second order polynomial.
> 4) incompressibility: do you use K=210 (soft EOS) for all the
> energies?
> If I remember in our prior 3 GeV paper, we used K=380 (I believe hard
> EOS).
> I would suggest to mention K values used in JAM in the main
> manuscript.
> 5) Since you are aiming for a letter, you don't have space. So I
> suggested to include event plane resolution and v1 versus pt figures
> as
> a supplemental materials to PRL.
> 6) around 196-197 of the draft, you should clarify that W/O spectator
> is
> the case where spectator interactions are turned off in JAM.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Subhash
>
> On 2024-04-17 04:09 PM, Zuowen Liu wrote:
> > Dear Subhash and All,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your nice suggestions.
> > Please find the answers in the slides attached.
> >
> > Kindly let us know if you have any further comments or suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks and Best regards,
> > Zuowen for PAs
> >
> > ------------------ Original ------------------
> >
> > From:  "subhash"<subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>;
> > Date:  Sun, Apr 14, 2024 06:28 PM
> > To:  "star-fcv-l"<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;
> > Cc:  "Zuowen Liu"<liuzw AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>;
> > Subject:  Re: [Star-fcv-l] Kaon anti-flow paper draft and analysis
> > notes for PWG review
> >
> > Dear Zuowen, PAs,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay. Thanks a lot for circulating this interesting
> > paper
> > and supporting materials. Overall, we have everything to move
> forward.
> > But I have the following question/comments for your consideration:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Analysis Note:
> >
> > Major:
> > -- As seen in Fig 59 and 60, the kaon-minus v1 have a discontinuity
> at
> > around y_cm ~ -0.7. It is also part of your main figure in paper.
> What
> > I
> > remember you have mentioned in some presentation that there was some
> > issue in mass-square in eToF. Was it related and can you please
> remind
> > me again how it was solved/addressed?
> >
> > -- page-46: Fig. 65: The proton v1 has a bump structure at around
> ycm
> > ~
> > -0.4. How do you understand it? Do you see a same structure for
> > lambda?
> >
> > -- page-11: You should have purity numbers for all your PIDs, please
> > add
> > them in your note. Note that there was a recent presentation from
> > Cameron Racz on the effect of proton purity on v3. Can this affect
> > your
> > analysis?
> >
> > -- page-24: Fig. 24: Can you add a few more example figures for your
> > v1
> > versus invariant mass for kshort and lambda, may be in the Appendix
> > section of AN? Please also add discussion how is v1 the background
> > shape
> > is considered. Have you varied v1^background to get systematic on v1
> > for
> > kshort and lambda?
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Paper draft:
> >
> > Major comments:
> > -- If I understand correctly, the main selling point of this paper
> is
> > the observation of anti-flow for pions and kaons at low pT. This
> > manuscript do not rule out the kaon potential causing anti-flow for
> > kaons, but concluded that it could also be driven by nuclear
> > shadowing.
> >
> > abstract: If it is a first time simultaneous observation of
> anti-flow
> > of
> > pions/kaons we could probably stress explicitly in the abstract in a
> > data driven way (what you did around #l 188-190) and then mention it
> > is
> > _supported_ by JAM.
> > l#16: It is concluded --> It is supported, since you haven't ruled
> out
> > kaon potential picture.
> > Is there a way in JAM to demonstrate the sign change in pions/kaons
> > _solely_ from nuclear shadowing, so that you can rule out one
> picture.
> > That might make this paper sending a stronger message.
> >
> > -- Compared to our 3 GeV PLB paper (2108.00908), what information it
> > can
> > bring in terms of baryonic mean-field. Because now we have p/lambda
> v1
> > for four different beam energies. It could be added in the
> conclusion,
> > eg what compressibility values are used.
> >
> > -- Please double check the Kaon data points at 3.5 GeV as I
> mentioned
> > above.
> >
> > -- I remember there was some discrepancies in two versions of JAM.
> > Which
> > version are you using? And it should be pointed out in the
> manuscript
> > if
> > results from JAM (version dependent) changed compared to our
> previous
> > publication.
> >
> > -- You would need a few supplemental figures to discuss on the event
> > plane and its resolutions.
> >
> > -- You could also think about reporting v1 versus pt in your
> > supplemental materials.
> >
> > Minor suggestions:
> > -- Please check notations, sometimes you use "protons" some times
> "p".
> > For instance l#77
> >
> > -- Fig. 4: You should mention rapidity coverages inside the figures,
> > although you are presenting dv1/dy
> > You could draw pi+ as markers, not to confuse with models. You can
> > play
> > with color coding.
> >
> > -- l#196: w/O spectator, have you turned off spectator interactions?
> > Sorry for my ignorance, but I wanted to understand how it was done
> in
> > JAM.
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Subhash
> >
> > On 2024-04-08 03:06 PM, Zuowen Liu via Star-fcv-l wrote:
> > > Dear Conveners and All,
> > >
> > > Here we update some materials for PWG review.
> > > Please let us know any comments and suggestions you may have.
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > -Paper draft:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Kaon_AntiFlow.pdf
> > >
> > > -Analysis notes:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysisnote_kaonantiflow.pdf
> > > -Analysis code in rcf:
> > > /star/u/liuzw/pwg/kaonAntiflow
> > > -Summary page on drupal:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/liuzw/Paper-proposal-kaon-anti-flow
> > > -Replies to pwgc preview comments:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PWGC_preview_kaon_antiflow_ver2.pdf
> > > Best regards,
> > > Zuowen for PAs
> > >
> > > ------------------ Original ------------------
> > >
> > > From:  "Zuowen Liu"<liuzw AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>;
> > > Date:  Wed, Feb 28, 2024 03:47 PM
> > > To:  "star-fcv-l"<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;
> > >
> > > Subject:  Kaon anti-flow paper draft and analysis notes for PWG
> > review
> > > Dear All,
> > >
> > > The paper daft and analysis notes for Measurements of Kaon
> Anti-flow
> > > in the High Baryon Density Region from Au + Au Collisions at √sNN
> > =
> > > 3 - 3.9 GeV are ready for PWG review.
> > >
> > > -Paper draft:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Kaon_AntiFlow.pdf
> > >
> > > -Analysis notes:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysisnote_kaonantiflow.pdf
> > > -Summary page on drupal:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/liuzw/Paper-proposal-kaon-anti-flow
> > > We’re looking forward to your comments and suggestions.
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Zuowen for PAs
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Star-fcv-l mailing list
> > > Star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-fcv-l