Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-fcv-l - Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 19/June/2024 Wed. 9:30 AM EDT

star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 19/June/2024 Wed. 9:30 AM EDT

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: Gaoguo Yan <gyan AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • To: subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
  • Cc: "STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG" <star-fcv-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-fcv-l] FCV PWG meeting on 19/June/2024 Wed. 9:30 AM EDT
  • Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 22:03:05 +0800
Dear Subhash,

Thanks for your comments.

After discussion with PAs, we decided to present centrality: 0-10% and 10-40%. So I redraw the Figure1, Figure2 and Figure3 which are shown in Page3-5 of attachment.

About F_n, based on your comments, I have extracted the F_n in each of cut variations, and then recalculate systematic uncertainty. You can find the comparison in attachment. Now, there are only two points of F_n versus centrality. Therefore, we don’t plan to add the plots of F_n slope versus energy/system size into the paper draft. You can find the detail procedure in Page14-18 of attachment.

About systematic uncertainty, the systematic uncertainty source from the negative/positive charge cut dominated in lower energy. I select a value which larger value than all ratio (r_n of each of cut variations /r_n of default cut) within error that pass the Barlow check because I don’t find the eta dependence. This relative error correspond to the value of table in Page7-9 and black line in Page10-13 of attachment.

About model comparison, we have contacted Chun Shen, he will use 3D MC-Glauber+Hydro. to calculate the longitudinal flow de-correlation. Once he completes the calculation, I will add the theoretical results into plots.

Thanks again.

Best regards,
Gaoguo Yan

在 2024-07-04 09:46，subhash 写道：
Dear Gaoguo, All,

Thanks for considering the suggestions. I have a few follow up comments:

Would you like to add these summary F_n slope versus energy/system
size into the paper draft? The ATLAS paper mostly discussing their
results using Fn versus centrality. If you shift x-axis slightly for
the data points, it looks much cleaner than r_n plots. But it could be
my bias.

BTW, you mentioned that you have estimated systematic error on F2 by
fitting r_n vs eta with systematic errors. If you extract the F_n from
r_n vs eta in each of your cut variations, and then recalculate
systematic on the slope, how different will they be from this current
values?

I don't recall if I asked this question during the fcv, but overall
your systematic errors are large. Could you please remind me is there
any dominant source? Also an example when you vary vz (or nhits) cuts,
do you apply Barlow condition of statistical fluctuation?

I am not an expert on decorrelation but since this paper is aiming for
PRL, I am of the opinion that additional of model comparison would be
helpful, eg Glauber is expected to be computationally faster compared
to AMPT/Hydro etc. These can provide some references how these data
can constrain on initial conditions. At least I would like to know the
intention of the PAs.

Thanks and regards,
Subhash



On 2024-06-22 11:40 AM, Gaoguo Yan via Star-fcv-l wrote:
Dear conveners,

I have presented paper proposal: Collision energy and system size
dependence of longitudinal flow de-correlation at RHIC at PWG-FCV
meeting. Below are responses to the PWG review.

Q1: Can you extract fit parameter?
A1: In our measurement, we used linear function to fit r_n versus eta.
I extracted parameter F_n(n=2,3) with centrality function in Au+Au
collisions at 19.6, 27, 54.4 and 200 GeV as well as isobar collisions
at 200 GeV. Though fitting the data points which only include
systematic uncertainty, I see the fitting error as systematic
uncertainty of F_n. You can find the in attachment.

Q2: What is the physical source of longitudinal flow de-correlation?
A2: Two sources: v_n asymmetry and event plane twist. Our observable
r_n can’t distinguish them. However, due to ATLAS has larger
acceptance and statistics, they defined a new observable, R_n that is
sensitive to the event plane twist effects. Though r_n and R_n, they
evaluate this two contributions. You can find more detail by this
reference: Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 2, 142. We have measured the R_n
in isobar but it has large uncertainty. You can find PWG-FCV meeting
link as below:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/20211110_isobar_FCV.pdf

Q3: What model results are available now?
A3: In RHIC energy, there is MC-Glauber, UrQMD and AMPT models
results. But those models have different pt range and reference eta
range and only focus on RHIC top energy. We can’t compare with them,
directly. We will discuss with theorist and add results of comparison
with model in our final results.

If I have missed any comments, please contact me. In additions, if
there are no more comments, I would like to apply for PWGC review.
Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Gaoguo Yan

在 2024-06-19 18:50，Gaoguo Yan via Star-fcv-l 写道：
Dear all,

Please find my slides in today meeting at below link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/gyan/Paper_proposal_LDeCorr_energy_system

Best regards,
Gaoguo

在 2024-06-17 16:02，Gaoguo Yan via Star-fcv-l 写道：
Dear Conveners,

I would like to present paper proposal: Collison energy and syetem
size dependence of longitudinal flow de-correlation at RHIC. Please
add me to the agenda. Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Gaoguo Yan

在 2024-06-17 15:30，subhash via Star-fcv-l 写道：
Dear All,

We shall have our weekly FCV PWG meeting this Wednesday (19/June/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.

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

Attachment: 20240619_FCV_paper_proposal_review.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page