STAR HardProbes PWG

[tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Hi Nihar,

Yes, that plot is not in the preliminary request.

Qian Yang

On 2023-09-22 12:34, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
> Hello Qina,
>
> Please find my reply inline.
>
> On 2023-09-21 19:52, tc88qy wrote:
> > Hello Nihar,
> >
> >  STAR released ZDC first-order EP results at QM. People may ask do we
> > have a comparison
> > between first-order EP and second-order EP. That the reason we did the
> > comparison.
> > We can keep in mind that they do have difference just as you and
> > Subhash motioned.
>
> I look at your preliminary request:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
> You have probably removed that comparison plots. Is not it?
>
> Besides, your preliminary request looks fine to me.
> With these, I sing off.
>
> Thank you
> Nihar
>
>
> > If you don't have further question, can I understand it as an 
> > sign-off?
> >
> > Hello Subhash
> > Thanks for pointing to the paper
> >
> > Qian Yang
> >
> > On 2023-09-21 16:40, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
> > > Hello Qian,
> > >
> > > Thank you addressing my comments. All your responses are fine to me.
> > >
> > > One follow up on your this reply.
> > > > > >  2.I just talking about the data, error bars can touch each other 
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > using "TPC 2nd order EP" and "ZDC 1st order EP".
> > > > > Sorry, Not clear.
> > > >  Actually, Do you have any physics expectation to the comparison if
> > > > the 1st order EP have such large error bars?
> > >
> > > If you look at my earlier comment copied here. Probably, my earlier
> > > comment was not clear.
> > >
> > > > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > What I want say is, if we use different detectors (central vs. 
> > > forward
> > > acceptance) and also different (1st vs 2nd) order EP to calculate 
> > > your
> > > J/psi spin alignment then do we expect the results would be the same
> > > or not?
> > > My expectation: it may not give the same because using TPC and ZDC
> > > detector have different correlation to acceptance region. And also
> > > different order EP could be another factor.
> > > But you quote "Results are consistent ..."
> > >
> > > Just to know your comment on it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Nihar
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2023-09-21 13:00, tc88qy wrote:
> > > > Hello Nihar,
> > > >    Please find my reply inline.
> > > >
> > > > On 2023-09-20 18:16, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
> > > > > Hello Qian,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please find my reply inline.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2023-09-20 14:56, tc88qy wrote:
> > > > > > Hello Barbara and Nihar
> > > > > >   I included 0-5% centrality to the first bin in the preliminary
> > > > > > request plots. The results have been updated in the preliminary
> > > > > > request plots. Please look at the it in this link:
> > > > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Nihar
> > > > > >  1.Just as I mentioned in previous email. We should look at a
> > > > > > centrality range with clear physics information.
> > > > > How do you know what is _clear physics_?
> > > > 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% or 0-50%, just like the phi spin alignment paper
> > > > are carry out at 20-60%. 20-50% or 20-60% centrality is what people
> > > > usually look at for QGP related study.
> > > > In peripheral collision, the case could very different from central
> > > > and semi-central collision.
> > > > I think it would be good to using 0-20%, 20-50% and 50-80% 
> > > > centrality bins.
> > > > > >  2.I just talking about the data, error bars can touch each other 
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > using "TPC 2nd order EP" and "ZDC 1st order EP".
> > > > > Sorry, Not clear.
> > > >  Actually, Do you have any physics expectation to the comparison if
> > > > the 1st order EP have such large error bars?
> > > > > >  3. done
> > > > > >  4. The rho_00 central value in 50-80% is on top of 1/3. While by
> > > > > > looking at the pT dependence of the same centrality,
> > > > > >     every data points central value is above 1/3. This is
> > > > > > inconsistency and related to yield extraction method.
> > > > > >  5. will done in the talk
> > > > > Please include in your preliminary request also.
> > > > done
> > > > > >  6. Please check in the preliminary request plot
> > > > >
> > > > > Please find additional comment on your preliminary request:
> > > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Slide13-14: "Centrality Integral" data point, the plotting style 
> > > > > is
> > > > > incorrect because of X-axis.
> > > > > I suggest to use the style of plotting in Fig.2 of Uplsilon PRL 
> > > > > paper.
> > > > > https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.112301
> > > > This is the first time I know that we have style requirement for 
> > > > Physics plots.
> > > > I have update it in the same link.
> > > > > 2) Slide 15: "global spin alignment signal mainly from the pT range 
> > > > > 1-3 GeV/c"
> > > > >    Do you mean you only use 1-3 gev/c range only for centrality
> > > > > dependence plot like fig. in SLide13,14?
> > > > >    If so, why don't you consider 3-4 gev/c range?
> > > > In each plots, I updated it with a legend to mention the pT and y
> > > > range we used in the analysis.
> > > > And after discuss with fcv group, we decide not show the pT 
> > > > dependence.
> > > > > 3) Do you have plan to show both Fig.1 and Fig,2 outside as STAR 
> > > > > preliminary?
> > > > >    I am wondering because Fig.2 shows there may be a centrality
> > > > > dependence, other hand Fig.1 shows fluctuations across centralities
> > > > > and also contradicts the earlier.
> > > > Yes, we plan to show both. Fig 1. just show people the signal over 
> > > > centralities.
> > > > In figure 2, We do not say there is a centrality dependence.
> > > > We emphasize the centrality range we selected.
> > > > 0-20% with the largest J/psi regeneration probability.
> > > > 20-50%, QGP with largest angle momentum or particle v2.
> > > > 50-80%, a reference
> > > >
> > > > Qian Yang
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > > Nihar
> > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Qian Yang
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2023-09-20 15:51, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
> > > > > > > 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