STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Shengli

I agree with you as it is reasonable to always add such MB, Prithwish was saying 

whether we increase threshold on the EPD simultaneously like "MB + nTOF>x +EPD>y” 

and/or even just one side of EPD for the new forward spectrometer. I would say we do 

10% with "MB + nTOF>x” and another 10% with “MB + EPDew>y”, in stead of 20% 

from one of them… Although I’ve agreed with you in March, isn’t that 20% sounds a little 

too generous/moderate for triggering, or? Depending on the rates and the pile-up, though. 

He means we still have a choice to do "MB + nTOF>xs + EPDew>ys”, with reduced 

xs<x and ys<y for the same total fraction, if you want...

Best regards, ShinIchi

On Apr 25, 2024, at 20:36, Shengli Huang <shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu> wrote:

Dear ShinIchi,

    The MB trigger we want already requires the coincidence between forward and background detectors + nTOF>=1.  So the MB will be EPDEW||BBCEW||VPDEW + nTOF>=1.  For the HM trigger, it will be either MB+nTOF>=x or MB+EPDEW>=x. Since we only select a 20% fraction, the bias will be small. 

    CMS and ATLAS HM triggers are top 1%, it is very different from us. What we do are more like a rejection of LM events in fact.

Thanks

Shengli

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, 11:47 PM EsumiShinIchi <esumi.shinichi.gn AT u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

Dear Shengli and all

I agree with you for the most of your arguments. 

Prithwish was trying to say in the pwg meeting yesterday that 

we need to have some requirements in the forward / backward 

region to reduce beam backgrounds. In principle, the high multiplicity 

requirement would be better given/defined at wider eta acceptance 

like the CMS triggering, in order not to be self-biased by the jet 

production in a small acceptance where you also try to measure 

correlations/flows. ATLAS is triggering with forward+backward 

excluding the central region, which might be better or could be worse. 

It does not matter much for the heavy ion collisions case, but it 

might affect the result in small system. So it might be worth to have 

both measurements as you add 5) at the end...

Best regards, ShinIchi

2024/04/25 10:22、Shengli Huang <shengli.huang AT stonybrook.edu>のメール:

Dear All,

1)Before we have the beam, the threshold remains unknown.

2)We currently only trigger a 20% fraction of MB pp events; hence, I don't anticipate any asymmetric distribution.

3)In our proposal, we solely seek a TOF HM trigger. Regarding the TOF threshold, once the beam is available, we'll adjust it to maintain the DAQ rate of HM events at approximately 20% of the MB rate, akin to our approach in the dAu HM setup. This adjustment should be straightforward.

4)If the luminosity proves insufficient to meet the 50% MB + 50% HM requirement, we can modify the pre-scale of MB to incorporate more MB events.

5)If there's interest in an EPD HM trigger, I suggest utilizing EPDE+EPDW simultaneously, as we did in OO. Additionally, we must verify the trigger efficiency and TPC multiplicity from EPDEW HM trigger dataset.

Thanks

Shengli

ShengliWe need EPDEW

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 11:53 AM EsumiShinIchi via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear Prithwish and all

Thank you very much.

(1) (TOF4 && EPDW) or (TOF4 && EPDE)
(2) TOF4 && (EPDW || EPDE)
(3) TOF4 && (EPDW && EPDE)

"EPDTAC diff (green)” corresponds to the EPD E&W, and
“EPDEW (green)” corresponds to the EPD E+W with a
threshold on the sum?

I wrote “or” and “||” differently and intentionally in above (1)-(3),
so if we add both sides of “or” in (1), it’ll become sane as (2)
as Mike was agreeing in the meeting, right? If you take timing
difference between EPDW and EPDE, we need to require hits
on both EPDs, therefore it’ll become (3). In order to be less
biased (in terms of forward and backward symmetry) high
multiplicity (biased) event, I think (3) is better, since we would
like to give a maximum biased high activity p+p event. Having
same threshold on TOF4, we might be able to increase the
threshold on EPD for (1) and (2) cases, while we could keep
relatively lower threshold on EPD in (3) case for the same rejection
factor. If we have the same EPD threshold we could also select
the same sample as (3) later in offline within the triggered
events of (1) or (2).

Considering the TOF acceptance is smaller than full iTPC
eta acceptance, we might be affected by the centrality/activity
selection bias, when we do TOF multiplicity dependent
"dphi vs deta” analysis, in that sense, we might like to have
somewhat higher threshold on EPD relatively to TOF. We
could start by taking Shengli’s minimum cuts on the high
multiplicity selection on TOF hits (top ~10% fraction?) for the
TOF4 threshold, and tune the EPD threshold by looking at
the rejection factor? I do not know whether we like to give
an for/back asymmetric bias intentionally for the our forward
detector. I thought not, or?

Best regards, ShinIchi

> On Apr 24, 2024, at 23:19, Prithwish Tribedy via Star-fcv-l <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> To follow up on the discussion, please chime in with your inputs for the trigger setup. As Jeff is configuring the triggers, we need to inform him of the thresholds.
>
> Here is one slide:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/run24_trigger_pp_high_mult.pdf
>
> What should be the TOF hit cut (TOF4 threshold)? What should be the EPD thresholds?
>
> Best,
> Prithwish
>
> On 2024-04-24 07:57, tan via Star-fcv-l wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> This is Li-Ke’s slides link, his email account has some issues when
>> send email to STAR mail-list.
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/FXTv2_Request_Preliminary.pdf
>> Thank you!
>> Best regards,
>> Tan
>>> 2024年4月22日 11:18，subhash via Star-fcv-l
>>> <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 写道：
>>> Dear All,
>>> We shall have our weekly FCV PWG meeting this Wednesday
>>> (24/Apr/2024) at 9:30 AM EDT. If you wish to present please let us
>>> know. The agenda will be collected at:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/jjiastar/bulkcorr
>>> Please send us your slides by Tuesday. Zoom details are copied
>>> below.
>>> Please take a note of the STAR internal deadlines for CPOD and SQM.
>>> Presenters are requested to give regular updates in the PWG.
>>> - CPOD presentations due to PWG by May 6. New preliminary
>>> approvals should happen the week of April 29
>>> - SQM presentations due to PWG by May 20. New preliminary
>>> approvals should happen the week of May 13
>>> If you are requesting new STAR preliminary results, you should
>>> prepare supporting materials following:
>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Prelim_Request_template.pdf
>>> 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!FTIjejoxcX44Ml77XbD5fLijExKUcY104plyLP6sB0i3YbFLUR4LFH1RUGJqSQ_C7g8xybdellQ91Jsw48LB1_aU1yfJxL9nqqcYFqBhPGk$
>>> [1]
>>> 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!FTIjejoxcX44Ml77XbD5fLijExKUcY104plyLP6sB0i3YbFLUR4LFH1RUGJqSQ_C7g8xybdellQ91Jsw48LB1_aU1yfJxL9nqqcYkN7IYw8$  [2]
>>> 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
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/j/1612377416?pwd=V3kvcnN5ZTRLVEc4U01QWUUycDQ1UT09__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPSsoT7xMU4yv2R9S-MdAlOp47nDxYHOku5JQIAyBDUHH6IJjEtY-uuXCMuyhhE-Jchz9xefxJKyEerUxjz2mHs$
>> [2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bnl.zoomgov.com/u/abVqdu5fbU__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!FPSsoT7xMU4yv2R9S-MdAlOp47nDxYHOku5JQIAyBDUHH6IJjEtY-uuXCMuyhhE-Jchz9xefxJKyEerUKEjzpOI$
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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