STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

[Richard Seto <seto AT ucr.edu>]

Subash
Great
Thanks
I don’t need to do anything at the moment 
Right?
Rich

Richard Seto
richard.seto AT ucr.edu
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 17, 2024, at 6:35 PM, subhash <subhash AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
> 
> Dear Priyanshi, PAs,
> 
> Thanks for posting the paper draft and related materials. They are in a 
> good shape. I have a few comments/suggestions for your consideration:
> 
> -- Fig. 2: I would suggest drawing Ru and Zr with different symbols, eg 
> solid and open markers? They can't be distinguished in b/w printing.
> -- In the section of systematic uncertainties, it would be better to list 
> some examples instead of saying we varied event selection, track selection, 
> particle identifications etc.
> -- Have you done any study on non-flow estimate for these flow 
> measurements, eg TPC vs EPD-EP and TPC with various eta-gaps? Some estimate 
> could be quoted in the paper.
> -- What is the reported uncertainty fit of the integrated v2 ratios between 
> two isobar systems, is it quadratic sum of systematic and statistical (e.g. 
> p0 in Fig 7)? Since the two isobars are taken in the same run conditions, 
> some systematic could get cancelled in the ratios between the two systems, 
> are these incorporated?
> -- Have you looked at AMPT comparison for different systems (eg Au+Au 
> versus isobars), it would be nice to see if it can capture the some of 
> these v2 ratios shown in Fig 8.
> -- Fig. 11-14, should be moved to the main section around the discussion on 
> signal reconstruction.
> 
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Subhash
> 
> 
>> On 2024-09-10 03:06 PM, psinha wrote:
>> Dear Conveners,
>> We would like to request for the GPC formation of the paper "Elliptic
>> flow of strange and multi-strange hadrons in isobar collisions at √sNN
>> = 200 GeV at RHIC".
>> Please find the paper draft and all the necessary supporting material
>> in the following links.
>> 1. Paper Draft:
>> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/vipul/IsobarFlow/WebPage/paperdraft/StrangeFlow.Isobar.STAR.ver1.pdf
>> 2. Webpage:
>> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/vipul/IsobarFlow/WebPage/index.html
>> 3. Analysis note:
>> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/vipul/IsobarFlow/WebPage/analysisnote/AnalysisNote_EllipticFlow_Isobar200GeV_v2.pdf
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Priyanshi Sinha (for the PAs)
>>> On 2024-08-03 10:36, psinha wrote:
>>> Dear Subhash,
>>> Thank you for the response. We are preparing the paper draft and will
>>> be sending it very soon.
>>> Regards,
>>> Priyanshi (for the PAs)
>>> On 2024-08-02 15:49, subhash wrote:
>>>> Dear Priyanshi, PAs,
>>>> Thanks for preparing the responses to the suggestions from PWGC. They
>>>> look good to me.
>>>> Did you posted/prepared a paper draft? Please circulate them as well
>>>> to the list when ready.
>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>> Subhash
>>>> On 2024-07-23 12:11 AM, psinha wrote:
>>>>> Dear Convenors and All,
>>>>> After the PWGC preview, we have prepared the replies to the PWGC
>>>>> comments and suggestions. Please find below the link to the replies,
>>>>> updated webpage and analysis note.
>>>>> PWGC comment reply:
>>>>> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/vipul/IsobarFlow/WebPage/pwgcreview/Replies_PWGCpreview.v1.pdf
>>>>> Webpage:
>>>>> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/vipul/IsobarFlow/WebPage/index.html
>>>>> Analysis Note:
>>>>> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/vipul/IsobarFlow/WebPage/analysisnote/AnalysisNote_EllipticFlow_Isobar200GeV_v2.pdf
>>>>> Kindly let us know if you have any comments and suggestions.
>>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>>> Priyanshi Sinha (for the PAs)
>>>>> On 2024-03-16 01:22, Sooraj Radhakrishnan via Starpapers-l wrote:
>>>>>> Date: 03/15/2024
>>>>>> Participants:  Chitrasen Jena, Priyanshi Sinha, Vipul Bairathi, Ting
>>>>>> Lin, Xiaoxuan Chu, Nu Xu, Prithwish Tribedy, Subhash Singha, Isaac
>>>>>> Mooney, Nihar Sahoo, Yi Yang, Shuai Yang, Yue Hang Leung, Zaochen Ye,
>>>>>> ShinIchi Esumi, Sooraj Radhakrishnan
>>>>>> Title: Elliptic flow of strange and multi-strange hadrons in isobar
>>>>>> collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV at RHIC
>>>>>> Target journal: Phys. Rev. C
>>>>>> Proposal page:
>>>>>> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/vipul/IsobarFlow/WebPage/
>>>>>> Presentation:
>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/psinha/PWGC-preview-v2-multi-strange-hadrons-isobar
>>>>>> The PWGC panel previewed the paper proposal from FCV PWG. The panel
>>>>>> found that the analysis is mature and results are important and
>>>>>> interesting, and the paper should move forward. The journal choice was
>>>>>> also found to be appropriate. The following points were discussed.
>>>>>> Q: The predictions for the ratio of the initial geometry asymmetry
>>>>>> between the two isobars is much larger the measured ratio of charged
>>>>>> hadron v2 between the two systems (shown on S2). Why is this so? Also,
>>>>>> why is there a non monotonous centrality dependence for the ratio?
>>>>>> A: These are early predictions. Newer calculations agree better with
>>>>>> the measured v2 ratio. Non-monotonous centrality dependence could be
>>>>>> from interplay of difference in multiplicity and difference in
>>>>>> deformation
>>>>>> Q: The variations in cuts are rather small. This may not reflect the
>>>>>> range of variation of your systematic uncertainty. So dividing by
>>>>>> sqrt(12) could be under-estimating the error. Could vary the cuts over
>>>>>> a wider range and see if you are capturing the range of variation
>>>>>> A: Will evaluate and update
>>>>>> Q: Do you have a table quantifying the magnitude of systematic
>>>>>> uncertainties from various sources?
>>>>>> A: Not in today's presentation. But have it in the presentations made
>>>>>> to PWG previously. Can include in the analysis note
>>>>>> Q: Can you extend the pT dependent v2 measurements to higher pT?
>>>>>> A:  The uncertainties get large beyond the bins shown in the plot.
>>>>>> Will see if its possible to measure for higher pT bins
>>>>>> C: Could show for some of the particles where statistics is good
>>>>>> A: Yes, will do
>>>>>> Q: On S18 (Fig.11), please zoom in the y-range for the ratio plots for
>>>>>> better readability
>>>>>> A: Yes, will do
>>>>>> Q: The ratio shown on S19 (Fig.12), for eg for K0s, shows enhancement
>>>>>> only above pT = 2 GeV/c. In this case can it be concluded that the
>>>>>> enhancement is from system size dependence of collectivity? Could be
>>>>>> from other effects
>>>>>> A: We don't have a clear answer for it. Will investigate further
>>>>>> C: Could calculate the eccentricity scaled v2 and compare between
>>>>>> different systems. This might help to better evaluate the system size
>>>>>> dependence
>>>>>> A: Yes, will do
>>>>>> Q: For Rcp, we see a clear system size dependence. Why it is not so
>>>>>> strong for v2
>>>>>> A: v2 depends more on the event shape than Rcp
>>>>>> Q: Lambda v2 clearly deviates systematically from the NCQ scaling
>>>>>> (S17). Do we see similar trend in Au+Au?
>>>>>> A: In Au+Au also we see that overall NCQ scaling holds within 10-15%.
>>>>>> Will check the behavior of Lambda in Au+Au
>>>>>> C: You see similar deviation for both Lambda and Lambda_bar
>>>>>> A: Yes, will check further and also in Au+Au
>>>>>> Q: Do you have model comparison to the v2 ratios (S18)?
>>>>>> A: Model calculations become challenging for different particles as
>>>>>> the error bars are large
>>>>>> Q: Can you compare to the ratio of initial eccentricities?
>>>>>> Q: Yes, will check that
>>>>>> Q: The deviations of the AMPT model calculations from data are
>>>>>> significant, particularly for K0s and Lambda (S20). So cannot say
>>>>>> models describe data
>>>>>> A: Yes, will modify the conclusions accordingly
>>>>>> C: The large centrality range used could wash out effects of
>>>>>> deformation difference. Could try comparison for more central
>>>>>> collisions
>>>>>> Q: Do you have AMPT calculations without string melting? Is there a
>>>>>> difference between the two modes?
>>>>>> A: No, we have the calculations only with string melting. Will do
>>>>>> Q: For the high pT bins (S15), do you have an estimate of the non-flow
>>>>>> contributions? The high pT bins particularly in peripheral centrality
>>>>>> seem to be dominated by non-flow
>>>>>> A: We don't have an evaluation of the non flow. Will do the evaluation
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sooraj Radhakrishnan
>>>>>> Research Scientist,
>>>>>> Department of Physics
>>>>>> Kent State University
>>>>>> Kent, OH 44243
>>>>>> Physicist Postdoctoral AffiliateNuclear Science Division
>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
>>>>>> MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
>>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94720
>>>>>> Ph: 510-495-2473 [1]
>>>>>> Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
>>>>>> Links:
>>>>>> ------
>>>>>> [1] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Starpapers-l mailing list
>>>>>> Starpapers-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/starpapers-l