star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR HardProbes PWG

List archive

Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] STAR presentation by Qian Yang for SQM 2022 submitted for review

From: tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
To: Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov>
Cc: Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>, STAR HardProbes PWG <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] STAR presentation by Qian Yang for SQM 2022 submitted for review
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 20:53:50 +0800

Hi Sooraj

New version (v7) is updated.

Qian Yang

On 2022-06-11 00:28, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:

Hi Qian,
Thanks for preparing these very nice slides. Sorry for the late
comments. Please find some from me on your latest version (v6)

S3: Not sure, for J/Psi we should say experience evolution of QGP as
its color neutral. May be could indicate that its a valuable tool to
study the color screening in QGP?

S3: and J/Psi regeneration

done

S4: Does it is --> Is it

done

S5:Do you want to put the second bullet as a second sub-bullet to
first?
S5: What do you refer to as the small systems here? Isobar? But there
has been no discussion if it yet. Also, small system is used for pA or
pp collisions, so might be better ti change as 'Does it have a system
size dependence?'

done

S5: control non-flow --> reduce non-flow?

dine

S6: precisely --> with good precision

done

S6: second bullet, do you want to indicate the MB number of events and
HT sampled luminosity?

done for MB

S6: pin down non-flow --> reduce non-flow

done

S6: you say 'moderate sized system' here, so could avoid the small
system discussion in the previous slide
S8: Highest precision measurement --> High precision measurement?

done

S9: Do you want to add references for the published results? Also on
the following slides

done

S11: What do you mean by initial system size here? I think no geometry
dependence and collision system dependence, as you conclude on S9, are
also suited here.

done

S11: Collision energy dependence was never discussed so far in the
talk. Could be confusing here, better to remove

done

S12: You could add the formula for SP method here, similar to the next
slide for the EP method

It will be very busy if I put the formula here. Maybe I can put it in backup if people want to discuss it .

S13: Psi_r --> Psi_n in the top formular, it should be the EP, not the
RP
S13: The v2_obs formula, second term sum should be only on Background
S13: Remember during last weeks PWG meeting it was mentioned that
there is a normalization factor for the background, is it already
applied in the plots?
S13: You are showing the 3-4 GeV bin here, which we dont show in the
results. I think its better to change, there will be question why its
not shown
S13: I think you need STAR Preliminary label on these plots as it
directly gives the v2

For Page13, as may you already know from the email. Barbara and I both suggested Yu-ming
provide some material for this page. But I did not get a response. Current page is what I understand for this analysis. Actually，I am not willing to show something that I am not familiar with. Because it will cause confusion if people ask, but I do not know how to give an answer.

In page 15, we do not have the sys. uncert. from HT dataset. Results rushed for conference always make me very nervous. We don't have any time to discuss about analysis details but just release result.

S16: Do you want to switch the order of the bullets here?

done

S16: is the dominant

done

thanks
Sooraj

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 8:55 PM tc88qy via Star-hp-l
<star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yi
It will be good that Yu-ming can also send me the sys. uncert. at
the
high-pT range at P15.
I am ok with a mass from HT data at P13
Please ignore P18, I did not put sys. uncert. on this plot. P18
will
be delete.

Qian Yang

On 2022-06-10 22:33, Yi Yang wrote:

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

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

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,
Department of Physics

Kent State University
Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral AffiliateNuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA 94720
Ph: 510-495-2473 [1]

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov

Links:
------
[1] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473

Re: [Star-hp-l] [Star-hf-l] STAR presentation by Qian Yang for SQM 2022 submitted for review , (continued)