STAR HardProbes PWG

[tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hi Barbara
  Thanks for your comments. Please find my rely inline.
New version (v6)

Qian Yang

On 2022-06-09 22:07, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
> Hi Qian,
>
> thanks for the updates, the slides look good to me.
> Just last comments.
> - There were suggestions to have a comparison of isobar results in
> fine binning (not the pT integrated one) in 0-80% centrality to the
> Au+Au results at the same centrality.  You can add the Au+Au on slide
> 14 or 16.

I tried it in the backup slides. In the plot, high-pT range are very 
distracting.
It will give an impression of Au+Au have the better precision.
That why I do not put the Au+Au results. If conveners think better to 
also put Au+Au results, I am fine with it.


> - s15: improvement of precision is not so clear to me for high pT. The
> blue point seems to have actually larger uncertainty than the Au+Au
> point, and the blue result is in a wider pT range. Also, there is no
> legend for the blue point.
> And that's also another reason I think it's better to have a
> comparison of Au+Au and isobar with the original isobar binning. You
> say on this slide we have better precision now, but the shown isobar
> points are in wide bins, which of course reduces the uncertainties.

We have different binning comparing to Au+Au. we have three bins between 
0.3 to 4 GeV/c. While Au+Au results have only 2 bins below 4 GeV/c. For 
each data point the error bars is comparable between Isobar data and 
Au+Au data.
By looking at the data, your instant feeling is that the measurement 
precision is not improved. Just like in slide 18

> - s16: that affecting -> that affects
done
> - s17:  no obvious system size and energy dependence -> no significant
> collision system and energy dependence at the same <N_part>
done
> - s17: effect dominated -> effect dominates
done
> And regarding your question. What we agreed during meetings before,
> when we discussed the non-flow estimation, is that at high pT the
> uncertainties are anyway large and the non-flow will not change the
> conclusions of zero v2. So we prioritized finalizing other parts of
> the analysis.
> For the publication, the non-flow effect will be estimated.
ok
> Cheers,
> Barbara
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 2:37 PM tc88qy via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> > Please find the new version in the same link(v5).
> > As Barbara suggested it would be good that Yu-ming can prepare
> > some
> > materials for TPC event-plane method in slide 13.
> > Please provide me the systematic uncertainties in slide 14
> > (20-60%)and 15 (pT-integral) ASAP.
> >
> > I have a concern about the TPC method. We currently do not
> > estimate
> > the non-flow contribution, which could be a main source for high-pT
> > J/psi especially for a small system.
> > Comparing to Au+Au with similar N_part, the non-flow is about 0.2
> > for
> > J/psi. If I was asked  about the non-flow contribution during the
> > meeting. How do we reply? we should have a strategy now.
> >
> > For other comments please find inline.
> > Also to remind you, my talk is June 14, which is 5 days to go. So
> > please send out your comments ASAP.
> >
> > Yi please find my reply inline below.
> > Qian Yang
> >
> > On 2022-06-09 14:55, Yi Yang wrote:
> > > Hi Qian,
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for the updated version.
> > >
> > > I have some comments/suggestions for your consideration:
> > > - p3: (top part) you should mention that "early creation" and
> > "long
> > > lifetime" can lead you to understand the QGP evolution, otherwise
> > > these two pullets seem to have no connection.
> > > (bottom part) Make them larger? And highlight v2 with
> > > different colors?
> > done
> > > - p5: In the previous page (p4), you compare LHC and RHIC, I
> > would
> > > think that it would be better if you could compare the v2 from LHC
> > > here again and mention what we can learn more than LHC.
> > > (I understand that you want to emphasize the systema
> > size on
> > > this page, but it seems more natural compared to the LHC's
> > results.)
> >
> > > - p6: minimum bias + high tower
> > > But the EPD has worse event plane resolution, right?
> > Should
> > > we mention it? Probably you can mention it orally.
> > done
> > > - p7: identification --> Identification   (two places)
> > > You should add a description on "EPD ', like the other
> > three
> > > subdetecctors.
> > done
> > > -  p8: More differential measurements
> > done
> > > -  p9 and p10: I would put "central" and "peripheral" in the
> > title to
> > > make it clear.
> > done
> > > - p10: you have the cartoons for collisions, can you add them in
> > here
> > > as well?
> > done
> > > - p13: Yu-Ming also has a very nice J/psi mass plot, can you add
> > one
> > > of them in this page?
> > > - p14: I remember what we discussed on the right-handed plot is
> > using
> > > 20 - 60% for both SP and EP from isobar (like the left-handed
> > one),
> > > right?
> > > (Yu-Ming is working on this plot now.)
> > > Second bullet: I am not sure I can get "Significant
> > non-flow
> > > suppression by using scalar-product method" from the plot (I
> > assume
> > > you are talking about the right-handed one). Since you might
> > change
> > > the right-handed plot, you might consider restating this bullet.
> > > (By the way, I thought it is "known" that using the
> > non-flow
> > > contribution will be smaller using scalar-product method, right?)
> >
> > > - p15: I would suggest using the pT dependent plot for isobar
> > (the
> > > right-handed plot on p14), and please add the HT result here.
> > > - Most precise v2 measurement
> > > - It would be good to make the v2 = 0.003 +/- 0.017 +/-
> > > 0.010 in one line
> > We are comparing a result with zero. Then what we want to answer is
> > a
> > question of yes or no. I think it would be more suitable to give
> > audience an idea of our final conclusion.
> >
> > > - p16: Adding J/psi v2 from LHC in the right-handed plot?
> > The reason I did not put LHC v2 result is that this is a short talk.
> > It
> > will be good to more focus on our physics picture. RAA and v2 at
> > RHIC
> > alone is already fruitful for this talk.
> > > - p17: Should mention RAA first (this is the order of your
> > > presentation).
> > > Any remarks from comparing the RHIC and LHC results?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Yi
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 7:07 PM tc88qy via Star-hp-l
> > > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Barbara and all
> > > >
> > > > After a local STAR group rehearsal, I updated the new version in
> > > > the
> > > > same link (v4)
> > > > Please send out your comments. Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Qian Yang
> > > >
> > > > On 2022-06-05 09:50, tc88qy via Star-hp-l wrote:
> > > > > Hi Barbara
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your suggestion, Please find my rely inline. and new
> > > > > version of slides are in the same link
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Qian Yang
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2022-06-04 16:37, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Qian,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for the update. The slides are very nice, please find my
> > > > > > comments below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Barbara
> > > > > >
> > > > > > s3 - I would also mention CNM effects
> > > > > Here I want to more focus on the hot medium effect. so I did not
> > > > > mention CNM.
> > > > >
> > > > > > s4 -  How it affect ->  How is it affected
> > > > > done
> > > > > > s5 - w be established -> evolves (?)
> > > > > done
> > > > > > s6 - v2 -> v_2
> > > > > done
> > > > > > s8 - make the left plot larger
> > > > > done
> > > > > > s9- dependence were shown -> dependence is observed
> > > > > done
> > > > > > s11 - you can emphasise here precision of the isobar
> > measurement
> > > > > done
> > > > > > s13 - it would be good to have better quality plots here. Maybe
> > > > > > Yu-Ming can prepare example procedure figures with better
> > > > graphics.
> > > > > > Also, are these efficiency weighed, is there some physics one
> > can
> > > > > > extract ?
> > > > > Sure, It will be good that Yu-Ming can prepare one page of
> > slides
> > > > for
> > > > > the procedure.
> > > > > The graphic is from Yu-Ming's preliminary request slides, I
> > think
> > > > it
> > > > > is efficiency weighted.
> > > > >
> > > > > > s14 - I think it makes more sense to compare 0-80% isobar to
> > > > 0-80%
> > > > > > Au+Au - so to have the Au+Au results on the left plot. But
> > let's
> > > > also
> > > > > > see what others think and we can then decide on the final
> > version
> > > > of
> > > > > > these plots.
> > > > > > Also, for the 20-60% range please keep in mind that Yu-Ming
> > might
> > > > have
> > > > > > his HT results early next week - in this case please update the
> > > > plot.
> > > > > > s15 - since we have higher pT results it would be nice to have
> > > > here
> > > > > > also the integrated v2 for higher pT > 4 GeV/c from the HT.
> > > > >
> > > > > ok
> > > > >
> > > > > > s15 - it's not so obvious to me how much better precision we
> > have
> > > > in
> > > > > > isobar compared to Au+Au. Is it possible to combine Au+Au for
> > pT
> > > > < 4
> > > > > > GeV/c ? Also, I think it would be better not to combine stat.
> > and
> > > > sys.
> > > > > > uncertainties for Au+Au results (also for the other
> > comparison),
> > > > it
> > > > > > might show better statistical differences between the two
> > > > results.
> > > > > The combination is not just combine the final physics data
> > point,
> > > > But
> > > > > do the extraction from the beginning.
> > > > > and the stat. and sys. are all needs re-calculation.
> > > > > I did not put sys. uncertainties for the Au+Au results, the
> > error
> > > > bars
> > > > > are just stat. uncertainties.
> > > > > But the sys. uncertainties is small for Au+Au.
> > > > >
> > > > > > s15 - for low pT, i.e. ~< 1 GeV/c, we expect 0 v2 because of
> > the
> > > > mass
> > > > > > effect. If it's fast, can you calculate integrated v2 for pT >
> > 1
> > > > GeV/c
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > I need to do some change to have this results. Let's us see, If
> > I
> > > > can
> > > > > have the final results next week.
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 AM tc88qy via Star-hf-l
> > > > > > <star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello All
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As we discussed in yesterday's HP meeting. I have updated the
> > > > > > > slides to
> > > > > > > a new version.
> > > > > > > Please find in the same link. Your comments and suggestion are
> > > > > > > welcome.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Qian Yang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-05-31 19:27, webmaster--- via Star-hf-l wrote:
> > > > > > > > Dear star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Qian Yang (qianyangstar AT gmail.com) has submitted a material
> > for
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > review,
> > > > > > > > please have a look:
> > > > > > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59787
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > If you have any problems with the review process, please
> > > > contact
> > > > > > > > webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Star-hf-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > Star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > > > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hf-l
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Star-hf-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hf-l
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > > > > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > > > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Star-hp-l mailing list
> > Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l