STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Qian,

thanks. I sign off.

Cheers,

Barbara

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 8:04 AM tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

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