STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Qian,

I don't have strong preference about the 40, 50 or 60%, you can leave it as you had, 20-50 and 50-80%. 

The main point was about not excluding the 0-5% range.

So from my side it's fine. But please wait if conveners have any comments on this.

Cheers,

Barbara 

On Wed, 20 Sept 2023, 07:55 tc88qy, <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Barbara,

  The last centrality bin will have large error bar as shown in my
binning study.
  What about 50-80%, it will reduce the error bars.
  I also checked the 50-80% <N_part> in Isobar, it is comparable with
60-80% <N_part> in Au+Au.

Qian Yang


On 2023-09-20 12:51, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
> Hi Qian,
> that's also fine. My only worry is that you will have large
> uncertainty for the pT different rho00 in this bin. But you can check.
>
> Cheers,
> Barbara
>
> On Wed, 20 Sept 2023, 05:39 tc88qy, <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Barbara,
>> I see your point. I agree to include 0-5% centrality to the
>> first
>> bin.
>> If we do 20-40% and 40-80% centrality, the last bin do gain
>> precisions.
>> But we probably need to think about the physics information we want
>> to
>> look at. In our case, it is the charm and anti-charm correlation
>> that
>> affecting by QGP. In most the Au+Au analysis, STAR paper then talk
>> about
>> QGP in a centrality of 0-60%, just like the phi spin alignment paper
>> are
>> carry out at 20-60%.
>> So, I suggest we do the binning of 0-20% , 20-60% and 60-80%.
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Qian Yang
>>
>> On 2023-09-19 23:39, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>> Hi Qian,
>>>
>>> thanks for point to the slides with additional checks.
>>> Regarding 0-5% centrality bin:
>>> As ShinIch also commented, sometimes the most central bin is
>> remove
>>> due to poor event plane resolution. However, in this case I don't
>> see
>>> the resolution being particularly bad, it's not so much worse than
>> for
>>> the mid-central case. If we have enough confidence to have this
>> point
>>> in the centrality differential plot, I don't see a reason why not
>> to
>>> include it when you integrate to wider centrality ranges.
>>> Regarding the other binning:
>>> The reason for having 20-40% and 40-80% is that the precision of
>> the
>>> mid-central point is almost the same while the peripheral bin
>> gains in
>>> precision compare to the 50-80% centrality range.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Barbara
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Sept 2023, 17:21 tc88qy, <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Barbara,
>>>>
>>>> I replied to the HP list for the comments I got from last HP
>>>> meeting.
>>>> Please find the details in this link:
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230917.pdf
>>>> In terms of the binning, I am not sure the reason of 20-40% bin.
>>>>
>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-09-19 22:15, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
>>>>> Hi Qian,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that you consider three centrality classes on plots on
>>>> slides
>>>>> 14-16 - same as you presented last week.
>>>>> As we discussed in more detail at the previous HP meeting, it
>>>> looks a
>>>>> bit weird (and I don't know what's the motivation in this case)
>>>> that
>>>>> you exclude 0-5% centrality bin.
>>>>> I suggest having the first bin as 0-20% centrality, then 20-40%
>>>> and
>>>>> 40-80%.
>>>>> Also, could you please prepare a comparison to the results that
>>>> use
>>>>> the first order event plane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:36 AM tc88qy via Star-hp-l
>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>> Please find my preliminary plots request in link below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Star-hp-l mailing list
>>>>>> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l