STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

["Zuowen Liu" <liuzw AT mails.ccnu.edu.cn>]

Dear Subhash,

Thank you for the reply.

The check will be included in the analysis note.

Thanks and Best regards,

Zuowen for PAs

 

 

------------------ Original ------------------

From:  "subhash"<subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>;

Date:  Thu, May 16, 2024 02:19 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, 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