STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Qian,

Thanks a lot for the replies. 

Please add the sizes of the different systematics in the preliminary request, and it would be good if you can list which one is the dominant one. 

I don't have any further comments on it.

Cheers,

Yi

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:49 AM tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yi,

  We do have some of the discussion. Please find in this link:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230917.pdf
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230920.pdf

  Please find my reply inline.

On 2023-09-22 23:52, Yi Yang wrote:
> Hi Qian,
>
> I was traveling for the past two weeks, sorry for the late replies.
> I missed some discussions, apologize if I asked something repeatedly.
>  - p9: Does the acceptance and efficiency depend on rho_00? Here you
> assume rho_00 is 1/3, will it bias your results?
This has been studied in the first link. The results shows the impact is
small.
>  - p10: what is the y-axis label "l-ract."?
It is "fraction". Since we only care about the relative shape. So I
normalized the
total yield to 1.
>  - p11: could you please show the sizes of uncertainties from each
> source, instead of just showing the sources?
This part has been shown at HP pwg meeting, which can be found in this
link:

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/jpsiSpinAlignment_20230914.pdf
If you want I can put it into the slides.
>  - p11: Any event plane uncertainty should be included here?
The event-plane resolution has been corrected in the final results.
>  - p13 and p14: If simply adding all the points from the left, I would
> expect to have a smaller deviation from 0. Could you please remind me
> why the systematics is much smaller in the 0-80% bin?
We sum over all data point according to statistical weighted average
method. The results is consistent with
the 0-80% data point. As you can find in the second link Page 3.
>  - p15: legend: isobar -->ZrZr+RuRu
done
>
> Cheers,
> Yi
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 4:38 AM tc88qy via Star-hp-l
> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hello Yi and Isaac
>>
>> Just a remind, that the SPIN2023 conference will start in 3 days.
>> Can you send out your comments?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Qian Yang
>> On 2023-09-22 16:34, tc88qy via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>> Hello Nihar,
>>>
>>> Sure, we can have more details discussion after the conference.
>>>
>>> Qian Yang
>>>
>>> On 2023-09-22 15:10, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>>>> Hello Qian,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for updating those figures.
>>>> After going through your slide16-17, I think we need to revisit
>> the
>>>> extraction of fitting parameter and its error again for final
>>>> publication. Please remind us on this point after the conference
>> to
>>>> have a discussion on it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Nihar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-09-22 12:13, tc88qy wrote:
>>>>> Hello Nihar,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have updated the plots. Thanks for your sign-off.
>>>>>
>>>>> Qian Yang
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-09-22 13:13, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Qian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you include all your fitting plots like in SLide12 for
>> all
>>>>>> centralities in your preliminary request?
>>>>>> That probably we have not seen and we missed.
>>>>>> It is important for our future discussion after the conference.
>>>>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Preliminary_figures_request_1.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-09-22 10:04, Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l 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 [1]
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.112301__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Bo1U-unYExfI0stJt_qckE-irbv6Wvk2SrPjs-aAXatstFnjJ2Fyr2CsPrnRDe5egYKV0IU6RRLwtE_BePmAJQnTmK4i$