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: Yu-Ming Liu <a0978279515 AT gmail.com>
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: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:20:58 +0800

Hi All
Please find the updated version in the same link

Qian Yang
On 2022-06-13 08:57, Yu-Ming Liu wrote:

Hi Qian,

Attached is the mass plot which Yi mentioned.

Yu-Ming

Yu-Ming Liu <a0978279515 AT gmail.com> 於 2022年6月12日週日
上午12:00寫道：

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: mass_unweight_pt4to5.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

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