STAR HardProbes PWG

[Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hello Qian,

My apologies, for my late response.
Please find my comments on your preliminary request.

1. On Slide3 "Centrality binning", I would prefer to use 0-20%, 20-40%, 
and 40-80% binning. Let me know what do you think. As is done in Slide4 
right side figure with STAR preliminary.
2. On Slide 4, My expectation that "TPC 2nd order EP" and "ZDC 1st order 
EP" may give a bit different results. But you quote "Results are 
consistent with each other due to large error bars in first order 
measurement". It sounds like using different Detectors ( TPC vs. EPD) 
and EP order (1st vs 2nd) results are still consistent. Is that you want 
to say?
3. Slide5 left fig: I think you need to include 0-20% instead of 5-20% 
centrality for pT-dependence plot. Is not it? [same for Slide7]
4. Slide5: "ρ00 systematic above 1/3 in pT dependence study for 50-80%…" 
-> But it looks all are consistent with 1/3 (dotted line) within 
uncertainty except 2-3 GeV/c pT bin (just ~1 sigma difference). Is not 
that?
5. SLide8: Please Include ALICE reference.
6. Please include also Physics message/conclusion on Slide 6,7,8.

Thank you
Nihar


On 2023-09-20 11:39, Barbara Trzeciak via Star-hp-l wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Star-hp-l mailing list
> Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hp-l