STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi Qian,

Attached is the systematic you need in p15. As for the mass plot, I will give you tomorrow.

Best,

Yu-Ming

tc88qy via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> 於 2022年6月11日 週六 下午10:00寫道：

Hi Sooraj
  Thanks for sign-off.

P15, I will wait Yu-ming until Sunday. If no, I will only keep low-pT
range data point.

Qian Yang

On 2022-06-11 21:43, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Qian,
>    Thanks for addressing the comments. I believe Yu-Ming will provide
> you with the details. But its standard EP method, but the phi-Psi_2
> bin counting being effectively continuous now.
>
> On S.13, you still need to add the STAR Preliminary label for the
> figure.
done
> On S.15, as I had suggested during last week's meeting, you could
> remove the high pT data point from the plot and focus on just the
> value in the pT integrated bin from 0.3 - 4 GeV/c. I am not against
> keeping the high pT point (with systematic uncertainties), but I dont
> think its essential for the purpose/message here.
>
> With these comments addressed I sign off as well.
>
> thanks
> Sooraj
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 6:23 PM tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> --
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
Star-hp-l mailing list
Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l

Attachment: v2systematic_pt4to10_centrality0to80.root
Description: Binary data