STAR HardProbes PWG

["Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT)" <priyanka.roy_chowdhury.dokt AT pw.edu.pl>]

Thanks Qian.

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 29, 2024 12:21 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

 

Hi Priyanka

I am ok with the new version and sign-off. As the meeting is
approaching. I will push your talk to next level. You will implements
Nihar and Isaacs's further comments in star-talk list.

Qian Yang

On 2024-11-29 16:19, "Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT)" wrote:
> Hi Qian, Isaac, Nihar and all,
>
>  Thanks again for your questions and comments.
>  Firstly, I updated the slides as V3 where I dropped the S19 and 20 in
> previous version (V2). Explanation is in the below.
>
>  I used the approach of fitting all parameters [Re(d0)=0, Im(d0)=0,
> Re(f0)=value from different theory model, radius(r0)= 0.5 to 10 fm] in
> LL model to perform a chi2 test. Although I realised that I kept one
> parameter [Im(f0)] free which should be taken as 0 too in cases where
> Im(f0) values aren't mentioned in certain theory model. I repeat the
> chi2 test using Re(f0) values from Guo model but took the spin states
> separately (f0 has different values for I=3/2 and I=1/2) as I did
> before (ref slides are attached here which I prepared for CF-PWG
> meeting on yesterday but due to lack of time I couldn't get a chance
> of discussion). Thanks to Qian for pointing out the issue of
> considering fractions of spin states properly. We decided to repeat
> the test with a consideration of taking spin state fractions.
> Currently, for model fitting, we considered spin averaged. So, for now
> I withdraw the slides with this discussion in Zimanyi school.
>
>  Another question asked by Qian regarding mentioning the fraction of
> spin states on the slides. If I understand your question correctly,
> you want me to describe what fractions were taken during theory
> predictions for C(k*) calculations. There's a back up slide (S22)
> where I discussed about fractions of isospin sates for D-pi channels.
> As the talk duration is 12+3, I still kept it in backup for additional
> discussion.
>
>  I would also like to address Isaac's questions about slides 19 and 20
> in (V2) regarding model fitting. For Huang model, I took the unc. as
> 3-sigma and got the chi2 curve like that. I repeated the calculation
> considering unc. as 1-sigma and the chi2 curve was similar as others.
> So, it is still not well understood why. I agree with your comment on
> S20 (in V2) that I can't draw such conclusion about scattering length
> based on current statistics, so it is better not to make such
> statement. Our main goal is to perform model fitting properly to
> understand a lower limit of source radii.
>
>  If these explanations answer your questions, I would like to request
> to kindly push my contribution to the start-talks.
>
>  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: Thursday, November 28, 2024 4:21 AM
> 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
>
> Hi Priyanka,
>
>   As shown in equation 1 on your slides. The correlation functions is
> an
> average of different pair spin state. And it is very important in
> extraction interaction and source parameters. D0 is a scalar meson,
> Kaon
> and pion are pseduonscalar mesons. But Proton is a fermion. There is
> only on spin state for D0-Kaon/Pion, but the spin stat for D0-proton
> pair is different. Mentioning the spin state will make the talk more
> clear to me. But I will let the speaker decide if she wants to include
>
> it or not.
>
> Qian Yang
>
> On 2024-11-27 19:20, "Roy Chowdhury Priyanka (DOKT)" 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
> [1]
>>
>>
>>  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>
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Zimanyi_24_Priyanka_V2.pdf