STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Qian,

Thanks a lot for the new version. 

I have one last minor comment/suggestion for your consideration. 

 - p13: It would be good to put a mass from the high tower trigger to show the statistics (Yu-Ming can send 4-5 GeV at 0-80% to you). 

Question: what are the differences between p16(right) and p18? The systematic uncertainties in Au+Au seem to be different. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:19 PM tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Barbara
   Thanks for your sign-off

Hi All
   Do you have any other comments?

Qian Yang

On 2022-06-10 19:50, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
> 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