STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Zuowen, PAs,

Thanks for doing these checks. Please include these re-binning studies 
etc into the note. I have no additional suggestions at the moment.

Let's wait for comments/sign-offs from other conveners, if any. Then we 
will proceed to the next step.

Thanks and regards,
Subhash

On 2024-05-16 11:54 AM, Zuowen Liu wrote:
> Dear Subhash and All,
>
> With regard to the K- v1 issue, we have examined it from various
> perspectives, including:
> 1) Slide 3: Data production dependence (P23ie vs. P24ia);
> 2) Slide 4-7: K- purity;
> 3) Slide 8: Efficiency correction;
> 4) Slide 9: dN/dy distribution;
> 5) Slide 10: Sharang and I conducted independent double checks, and
> the results are consistent.
> Please refer to the attached slides for details. We didn't find any
> problems in the analysis.
>
> It appears that the similar shape of K- v1 in the forward rapidity is
> also observed in the 3 GeV data (PLB 827, 2022 (137003), panel c of
> Fig. 3). We propose reducing half of the rapidity bins to increase
> statistics in each rapidity bin.
>
> Thanks and Best regards,
> Zuowen for PAs
>
> ------------------ Original ------------------
>
> From:  "Zuowen Liu"<zuowen.liu AT qq.com>;
> Date:  Tue, Apr 23, 2024 05:19 PM
> To:  "subhash"<subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>;
> Cc:  "star-fcv-l"<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;
> "liuzw"<liuzw AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>;
> Subject:  Re: [Star-fcv-l] Kaon anti-flow paper draft and analysis
> notes for PWG review
>
> Dear Subhash,
>
> I tested reducing half of rapidity bins, as shown in the attached
> figure.
> K- v1 looks smoother.
>
> Can we propose to reduce rapidity bins for K- in the later analysis?
> The large statistic error would be reduced and give smoother v1.
>
> Best regards,
> Zuowen for PAs
>
> ------------------ Original ------------------
>
> From: "Zuowen Liu" <zuowen.liu AT qq.com>;
> Date: Tue, Apr 23, 2024 03:09 PM
> To: "subhash"<subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>;
> Cc:
> "star-fcv-l"<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;"liuzw"<liuzw AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>;
> Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] Kaon anti-flow paper draft and analysis
> notes for PWG review
>
> Dear Subhash and All,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The Fig. 42 you mentioned might be an old plot.
> Please find the new AN in the updated one:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysisnote_kaonantiflow.pdf
> [1]
> And the draft is also updated:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Kaon_AntiFlow.pdf [2]
>
> v1(y) in small pT bins also can be found in slide 3, there is no
> obvious discontinuous unlike v1(y) in the wide pT bin (slide 2).
> I don't think the possible discontinuous in the for-rapidity (pT >
> 0.7) would impact on the physic message we deliver. Because cubic
> fitting is applied, the for-rapidity v1 is described by the cubic
> term.
> But we focus on dv1/dy in the mid-rapidity in this analysis.
> We can't discard v1 at low pT (pT < 0.6), since anti-flow is only
> observed at low pT.
>
> Anyway, I will redo the PID study for Kaon. It might be the most
> possible issue from my side.
> Thank you again for your prudence.
>
> Best regards,
> Zuowen for PAs
>
> ------------------ Original ------------------
>
> From: "subhash" <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>;
> Date: Tue, Apr 23, 2024 09:32 AM
> To: "Zuowen Liu"<zuowen.liu AT qq.com>;
> Cc:
> "star-fcv-l"<star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>;"liuzw"<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,
>
> 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
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/analysisnote_kaonantiflow.pdf
> [2] https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Kaon_AntiFlow.pdf