STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

HI Isaac,

As we discussed in person today, I agree using the former approach is okay for the QM. 

Cheers,

Yi

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 12:54 PM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi all,

Sorry for this 11th hour message, but I realized what I thought earlier was a bug was actually not. I was just sleepy and second-guessed my earlier self. To be more explicit: when I divide into 1% centrality bins and get the 10% q2 ranges, I can either add together those spectra (with a 1/Ncoll weighting) to get the overall 20-40% high or low q2 spectrum, then take the ratio of those two; or, I can take the ratio in each 1% bin, and add together the ratios (no Ncoll weighting, dividing the overall ratio for 20-40% by 20 (= number of centrality slices added together) to get something that is unity if there is no difference in any range). The former approach was what I had been using and thought incorrectly was a bug late one night, while the latter was the supposed fix. Each should give distinct results, but each has merits. However, since the former way is more similar to what has been done by others in the past, I think it should be used for QM. We can think about it more in the future. So, I’ve updated the poster in place in v3, and the preliminary request slides (https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PreliminaryRequest_forQM23_AuAu2019_FINAL_0.pdf) with the change. There is almost no change to the low-pT points, while the mid/high pT mostly just flattens out a bit more and has a bit larger systematics in that range. Please take a look at the attached figures and flip back and forth, and let me know if you have any comments. I think it’s better to stick to what has been done in the past for now unless we have a good reason for changing it, but I’m happy to address any feedback.

Thanks,

Isaac

On Aug 30, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Isaac,

Thanks a lot for the updated version and replies. I don't have any further comments on it.

Cheers,

Yi

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:35 AM Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu> wrote:

Hi Yi,

Thanks for your thoughts. Responses:

The caveat still holds — I tried rerunning over the ~3k failed files 3 or 4 times at different points and never got any additional files. I talked to Jerome about it and he kindly said he’d look into it although he hasn’t gotten back to me yet.

I added the q2 definition, slides are now here: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PreliminaryRequest_forQM23_AuAu2019_FINAL_2040cent_0.pdf

I select the q2 along the lines of ShinIchi’s suggestion, as it’s what has been used in ESE analyses in the past. We can think about it more after QM though.

I prefer to show that last bin because I’m making the claim that the high pT is roughly flat, but (albeit with large uncertainty) this point ticks up a bit. So not showing it would feel like cherrypicking the data I want that helps to make my claim. But if you think it shouldn’t be shown we can discuss it further.

Thanks,

Isaac

On Aug 30, 2023, at 6:34 AM, Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Isaac,

Thanks a lot for the preliminary request. I have some minor comments/suggestions for your consideration. 

 - p4: Is this Caveat still in 2019? 

 - Could you please add the q2 definition in the slide (what you show in the poster)? 

 - Could you please remind me how you select your q2 now, using a fixed number for all centralities (Rongrong's suggestion) or different numbers in different centrality bins (Shinlchi's suggestion)?  

 - Figure 4: the uncertainty for the last bin is still large, any particular reason for showing it?  

Cheers,

Yi

 

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 2:53 PM Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Sorry for any potential confusion this causes, but after a discussion with Helen today, we think it would be better to show the centrality range 20-40%. There’s nothing wrong with the 40-60% per se — it’s just that the q2 resolution worsens due to the lower multiplicity (which was why we decided not to use the isobar data earlier). Including the 40-60% was done to increase statistical precision, but it turns out that the sacrifice is systematic precision. So I’ve instead uploaded https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PreliminaryRequest_forQM23_AuAu2019_FINAL_2040cent.pdf which has the same preliminary plot request but for 20-40% instead. The trend we saw before is a bit stronger and the systematics on the higher pT are much better without too much worse statistics. I think this is a win-win, but understand that it’s coming late in the game so hopefully this is not too drastic of a change. Additionally, the “Figure 3” plot (slide 12) shows much better separation which will make an easier argument for using the EPD for q2.

Please let me know if there are any further comments.

-Isaac

On Aug 28, 2023, at 12:36 PM, Mooney, Isaac via Star-hp-l <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi all,

Here is my official preliminary request for the AuAu event shape engineered track spectra comparison with the 2019 200 GeV MB data: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/PreliminaryRequest_forQM23_AuAu2019_FINAL.pdf

Please let me know if there are any further comments.

Thanks,

Isaac

_______________________________________________
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