STAR Flow, Chirality and Vorticity PWG

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

Dear Conveners,

This is a gentle reminder requesting for the GPC formation if replies to 
the PWG comments are fine.
Kindly let us know if anything required from our side.

Thanks and regards,
Priyanshi (for the PAs)

On 2024-10-07 15:00, psinha wrote:
> Dear Subhash,
>
> Thank you for the useful comments and suggestions on the paper draft.
> Please find attached file for the replies. Kindly let us know if any
> other modifications are required.
>
> The updated paper draft can be found at the following link.
> https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/vipul/IsobarFlow/WebPage/paperdraft/StrangeFlow.Isobar.STAR.ver2.pdf
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Priyanshi Sinha (for the PAs)
>
> On 2024-09-18 07:05, subhash 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