STAR HardProbes PWG

["Mooney, Isaac" <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>]

Hi Priyanka,

I am happy with s. 19, although it might be nice to explain on the slide why the Huang l = 3/2 analytical fit has this interesting minimum at 1 fm while all the others are monotonically decreasing. 

As for s. 20, I have a few comments:

I can see that the lines aren’t identical, but they look almost identical at first, and from a distance they definitely will. I recommend a single plot where you show the comparison of R = 2.5 fm and R = 6 fm, with different line colors/styles.

We see here that the R = 5 fm result is different from the prediction from the theory calculation we saw on s. 17. One is a fit, and one is a prediction, so this is okay, but can you make a comment on the slide about this?

How are we ascertaining a small scattering length? Is it being inferred from the correlation function value? Either way, it would be good to spell out how you arrive at this from the plots, on the slide.

Thanks,

Isaac

On Nov 27, 2024, at 06:20, Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT) <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl> wrote:

Hi Qian and all,

Please accept my apologies for the delay. I finished the model study for D-pi pairs. I used Lednicky-Lubositsz formalism and fixed interaction parameters (f0, R) according to theory models (used by ALICE) to perform chi2/ndf vs radius test. I attached a comparison plot of chi2/ndf vs R on S19. As we can see the chi2 minimum is around R = 2 fm (varies with different model), so the lower limit of source radii is around 2 fm but we can't pin down the upper limit of the source radii from current statistics.

On S20, I added fit plots while source radii are fixed by 2fm, 3 fm and so on which are providing the scattering length around 0 fm. 

Please let me know if you have any questions and comments. My plan is to discuss the fit results with my supervisor as well as with CF-PWG's tomorrow meeting. For the time restriction, I updated my slides (V2) with the above-mentioned plots.

On S13, the second bullet (regarding D0 background) has been removed to avoid any confusion.

Conclusion statement of physics fig plots has been modified based on Nihar's comment.

I am still not sure how to address the spin state of considered pairs, so didn't mention anything about spin states.

https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Zimanyi_24_Priyanka_V2.pdf

Regards,

Priyanka

---

From: star-hp-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov <star-hp-l-request AT lists.bnl.gov> on behalf of tc88qy <tc88qy AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 2:43 PM
To: star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Mooney, Isaac <isaac.mooney AT yale.edu>
Subject: Re: [[Star-hp-l] ] STAR presentation by Priyanka Roy Chowdhury for Zimanyi School 2024 submitted for review

 

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>