STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Barbar

 I put the Au+Au results on slide 16 for comparison, also the sys. unc. 
have been added.
The same version v6 can be found in the same link.

Qian Yang

On 2022-06-10 12:48, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
> Hi Qian,
> I think we should have the isobar and Au+Au comparison. These are
> results that we have. And the isobar results at hight pT have worse
> precision than hight pT Au+Au, right ? It's even visible on the plot
> where you integrate into two bins.  And when you write about the
> precision, you should be then clear the improvement is at low pT,
> below 4 GeV.
> Also, we discussed that it would be good to have sys. unc. for Au+Au
> plotted.
>
> Cheers,
> Barbara
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022, 04:32 Yu-Ming Liu, <a0978279515 AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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