STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yu-Ming Liu <a0978279515 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Qian,

Attached are the plots in pdf version.

I noticed that there are something wrong in formula v2 observed in p13. cos(2(phi-psi2)) is the correct one not cos(2(phi)-psi2) .

I think cosine distribution can show the particles relate to the plane angle. Particles have a trend lying in-plane and shoot up from plane.

Best,

Yu-Ming

tc88qy via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 於 2022年6月10日 週五 上午9:48寫道：

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
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

Attachment: cosdis_pt4to5_sthf_SQM.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: cosdis_pt3to4_sthf_SQM.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document