STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hello Priyanka

  Please find my comments below.
1) if you do not used consider the combinatorial background separately, 
then it is no need to mention in Like-sing and mixed-event.
2) For the physics plots, it is ok of considering spin average. But I 
think you should make it clear. Just like the plots you sent out, 
different isospin assumptions gives different shape. Then how the model 
deal with it?

Qian Yang

On 2024-11-22 00:39, Mooney, Isaac wrote:
> Hi Nihar, I’m fine with your phrasing. Priyanka, thanks for sending
> the additional studies. I’m happy with the slides pending the
> placeholder, so we’ll wait until you send that in a couple of days.
>
> Thanks,
> Isaac
>
> > On Nov 21, 2024, at 09:52, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT)
> > <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Many thanks for all your comments, questions and suggestions. Sorry
> > for my delay in getting back to you. I was going through required
> > tests for fitting my data. I have uploaded a modified version and
> > attached two slides to clarify my answers. Please find my answers to
> > your questions in the following.
> >
> > Nihar:
> > Slide 2: Please provide reference of this cartoon -> added
> >
> > Slide 16 & 17: I agree with Isaac's explanation about the
> > conclusion statements. Please check the attached slides also, where
> > I have shown example fits for D0-pi data using Ledniszky-Lubositz
> > model. I fixed scattering length [Re(f0)] using different theory
> > model (showing plots using one model with two Isospin states only)
> > and took variation in source radii (R) to perform chi2 test. This
> > study could only help us to understand the lower limit of source
> > radii which agrees with our already made conclusion. As we don't
> > have any model prediction using R > 5 fm, it's not possible to
> > compare data with predictions with higher radii. In general, as we
> > know, larger the source radii, flatter the correlation signal. As we
> > have flat signal with large uncertainties, our fitting and chi2 test
> > could only help us to exclude the range of R below which chi2 test
> > fails.
> >
> > Slide 18: C(k*) signal is flat within large uncertainties at the
> > low k* bin.
> >
> > Slide 19: Some fit plots are ready, need to finish for other pairs
> > (D0-K, D0-p). It should take one-two days. If that's okay, I would
> > still like to keep the slide on hold.
> >
> > Qian:
> > Slide 4, Please give a reference to this page -> Done
> > Slide 6, it is sqrt(pi) rather than sort(2) in equation (1) ->
> > Corrected
> > Slide 12, If your analysis just used part of the data, then you
> > should mention it -> I mentioned the no. of good events analysed
> > (490 M), do you want me to put it as a % of whole dataset?
> > Slide 13, Background is not shown in the plot (either SE-LS or
> > MX-UL) -> In our analysis, we didn't consider the combinatorial
> > background separately, rather used the fitting approach over all D0
> > candidates
> > Slide 16,17 and 18, It will be good to point out how you deal with
> > different spin states and its relative fraction -> I am not sure
> > about how to consider the spin states (in general we consider spin
> > average). Do you have any suggestion on this?
> >
> > I am open for any further discussion, even at today's PWG meeting.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Priyanka
> >
> > -------------------------
> >
> > From: star-hp-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov
> > <star-hp-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of Nihar Sahoo
> > <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 5:18 AM
> > To: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
> > Cc: star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> > Subject: Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy
> > Chowdhury for Zimanyi School 2024 submitted for review
> >
> > Hello Isaac and Priyanka,
> >
> > On Slide16: we could rephrase that bottom sentence as
> > "STAR data shows no significant correlations, but the data
> > consistent
> > with theoretical model
> > prediction with emission source size of 5 fm within uncertainty"
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Best
> > Nihar
> >
> > On 2024-11-21 03:10, Mooney, Isaac wrote:
> > > Hi Priyanka,
> > >
> > > I have no additional comments on your nice slides, pending the
> > > possible addition on slide 19. One comment to Nihar: on s. 16, I
> > would
> > > call that consistency between the model (pink) and data across the
> > > entire domain, within statistical and systematic uncertainty of
> > the
> > > data and theoretical uncertainty on the model. By eye it looks
> > like <
> > > 1 sigma deviation of the central value from the model value in the
> > > lowest k* bin. Maybe the deviation when combining both of the
> > lowest
> > > two bins gets above 1*sigma, but since the lowest bin is where the
> > > qualitative behavior of the model is changing, it seems that would
> > be
> > > the region where we want to know the consistency or lack thereof.
> > > Priyanka could comment if she has the exact numbers for deviations
> > of
> > > the data and model as a whole with all bins, and/or just with the
> > > lowest two where there may be some slight tension, and/or the
> > value
> > > for the very lowest bin. But to me it seems that what she is
> > trying to
> > > say is: "yes the data are flat, but within uncertainty, do they
> > also
> > > support a physical picture which has some effect at low k*? Yes."
> > And
> > > I think that’s a valid interpretation, given the plot.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Isaac
> > >
> > > > On Nov 18, 2024, at 22:33, tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> > > > Hello Priyanka,
> > > >
> > > > Nice Slides. Additional to Nihar's comments, please find my
> > comments
> > > > below:
> > > > Slide 4, Please give a reference to this page.
> > > > Slide 6, it is sqrt(pi) rather than sort(2) in equation (1).
> > > > Slide 12, If your analysis just used part of the data, then you
> > > > should mention it.
> > > > Slide 13, Background is not shown in the plot (either SE-LS or
> > > > MX-UL)
> > > > Slide 16,17 and 18, It will be good to point out how you deal
> > with
> > > > different spin states and its relative fraction.
> > > >
> > > > Qian Yang
> > > >
> > > > On 2024-11-18 13:14, Nihar Sahoo wrote:
> > > > Hello Priyanka,
> > > > Please find my comments on your nice slides.
> > > > _Slide2: Please provide reference of this cartoon [ALICE
> > > > experiment’s probably]
> > > > _Slide16, “STAR data shows no significant correlations, but the
> > > > data
> > > > is also consistent with theoretical model
> > > > predictions with emission source size of 5 fm or larger” -> It
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > correct. It is not consistent at low k*. Please correct it.
> > > > _Similarly in Slide 17, It is consistent within uncertainty at
> > low
> > > > k*.
> > > > Please clearly mention it.
> > > > _Slid18:  “We do not observe significant correlations between
> > D0-p
> > > > pairs” -> on “Significant correlation”, who do you know
> > this
> > > > is not
> > > > significant? I think at low k* we see some correlation., but you
> > > > have
> > > > larger bin size so last point only shows this correlation. Is not
> > > > it?
> > > > _Slide19:  Either you drop this slide with “place holder” or
> > you
> > > > finalise this slide  before we sign off.
> > > > Best
> > > > Nihar
> > > > On 2024-11-18 02:50, "Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT)" wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > Please have a look at the submitted slides for the upcoming
> > Zimanyi
> > > > school. Slides are almost similar as WPCF with a place holder in
> > > > slide
> > > > no. 19, which should be finalized soon.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Priyanka
> > > > -------------------------
> > > > From: star-hp-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > <star-hp-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of
> > > > webmaster AT star.bnl.gov
> > > > <webmaster AT star.bnl.gov>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2024 10:15 PM
> > > > To: Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov <Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
> > > > Subject: [[Star-hp-l] ] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy
> > Chowdhury
> > > > for Zimanyi School 2024 submitted for review
> > > > Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
> > > > Priyanka Roy Chowdhury (priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl)
> > has
> > > > submitted
> > > > a material for a review, please have a look:
> > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/69916
> > > > [1]
> > > > Deadline: 2024-12-02
> > > > ---
> > > > If you have any problems with the review process, please contact
> > > webmaster@http://www.star.bnl.gov/
> > > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Links:
> > > ------
> > > [1] https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/69916
> > > [2] http://www.star.bnl.gov/
> >
> > <Chi2 test_D0-pi_Nov 21_Priyanka.pdf>