Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

star-gpc-355-l - Re: [Star-gpc-355-l] Replies to the referees' comments for the short and long papers of the isobar CME baseline study

star-gpc-355-l AT lists.bnl.gov

Subject: STAR GPC #355

List archive

Re: [Star-gpc-355-l] Replies to the referees' comments for the short and long papers of the isobar CME baseline study

Chronological Thread  
    < Chronological >       < Thread >
  • From: "Feng, Yicheng" <feng216 AT purdue.edu>
  • To: STAR GPC #355 <star-gpc-355-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
  • Subject: Re: [Star-gpc-355-l] Replies to the referees' comments for the short and long papers of the isobar CME baseline study
  • Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:30:00 +0000
Hi Jamie, Prithwish, and All, 

Thank you for your valuable comments. 
We have followed nearly all of them and modified the replies and manuscripts accordingly. 

Only a minor difference from Prithwish's suggestion, 
we put the [isobar-->AuAu signal scaling] reference in the PRC response (lines 188-191)
for the questions "Where does the CME research program go from here?".

All the related files have been uploaded to the drupal webpage:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/fengyich/Background-Baseline-CME-Isobar-Collisions-Webpage
Or directly through the links below:
→short paper
    reply to comments with changes suggested by GPC: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff_Reply_IsobarNfBkg_S_20231211_v11v13.pdf
    revised manuscript: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/IsobarNfBkg_S_v26.pdf
    latexdiff for changes from GPC comments: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff_IsobarNfBkg_S_v25v26.pdf
    latexdiff for total changes: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff_IsobarNfBkg_S_v23v26.pdf
→long paper
    reply to comments with changes suggested by GPC: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff_Reply_IsobarNfBkg_L_20231209_v10v12.pdf
    revised manuscript: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/IsobarNfBkg_L_v42.pdf
    latexdiff for changes from GPC comments: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff_IsobarNfBkg_L_v40v42.pdf
    latexdiff for total changes: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff_IsobarNfBkg_L_v28v42.pdf

If you have any further comments, please let us know. 

Sincerely,
Yicheng for the PAs

From: Prithwish Tribedy <prithwish2005 AT gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 1:23 PM
To: STAR GPC #355 <star-gpc-355-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
Cc: Feng, Yicheng <feng216 AT purdue.edu>; James Dunlop <dunlop AT bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Star-gpc-355-l] Replies to the referees' comments for the short and long papers of the isobar CME baseline study
 
---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Hi Yicheng and all,
 Greetings from WWND, I wanted to get back earlier but couldn’t resist to go out and ski for the first time :) 

Great job with the response drafts and modified manuscripts. A few minor comments. 

PRL response: 
Somewhere in the impact you might consider citing your few authors paper on isobar—>AuAu signal scaling, saying something along the line of “Our current work provides a strong motivation to continue the search for CME with high statistics AuAu run 23+25 data (expected to reach 5σ significance), using the novel data-driven method we developed to assess non-flow effects.”

Somewhere add: “Isobar blind-analysis had limited flexibility by design and did not have the scope for estimations of CME fraction or CME upper-limit, a follow-up analysis to provide them was highly anticipated by the community that motivated this work.” 

"we respectively disagree” —> “we RESPECTFULLY disagree” 
(you did this at other places too)

Since this is always an uphill battle, you can avoid the work “disagree” also write:
However, we respectfully request the referee to reconsider the conclusion that 
our work is not suitable for Physical Review Letters
or 
We do not share referee's view that this paper is only a modest improvement over the blind analysis publication 

On page 4 write a short sentence along this line:
“Assessing the flow & non-flow background baseline is crucial for the CME search. Although the understanding of the flow-driven background has improved over the years, no satisfactory quantitative estimates of the non-flow effects have been provided. This paper makes a significant advancement in this direction.” 



PRL Manuscript, last sentence:
I am thinking if it is better to use something other than “solid interpretation” and also, can we avoid word “previous”. 

 How about:
"This study provides a solid interpretation to the previous STAR isobar measurements."
—>
"This study provides a robust interpretation and a highly anticipated estimation of the remaining CME signal in the STAR isobar measurements” 


PRC response:  
Regarding this comment:
“Where does the knowledge gained by the STAR study fit into the big picture of what has been studied elsewhere? In general, it would be good to connect what is done here to the published literature outside of STAR.”

Can we say something like: “The knowledge gained by the STAR study fits into the big picture of what has been studied elsewhere by providing a novel data-driven method to assess non-flow effects in relatively larger/intermediate size collision systems that require special attention and a different approach because the approximations such as unmodified away-side correlations, which are reasonable for small systems, may not be valid.”  

Regarding this comment:
“Finally, in the conclusions, it may be useful for the reader….Where does the CME research program go from here.”

In this sentence:
"STAR will continue CME search in Au+Au collisions in beam energy scan and high-statistics top energy (200 GeV) dataset taken in 2023+2025” 
—>
As elaborated in the recent Beam-User-Request for the years 2024-25, STAR will continue CME search in Au+Au collisions in beam energy scan and high-statistics top energy (200 GeV) dataset taken in 2023+2025 which shows the prospects of achieving 5σ measurements. STAR will also continue to analyze the Beam Energy Scan-II data. The novel analysis technique developed here will be high useful for future analyses.”  



PRC Manuscript: 
revise:
"The track merging ….. at $\Delta \eta = 0$. Resonance decays and intra-jet correlations are...” 
—>
"The track merging ….. at $\Delta \eta = 0$. HBT, resonance decays and intra-jet correlations are...” 


"We note …... have been performed previously [42–49]. The analysis procedure is well established and produces comparable nonflow contributions.”
—>
"We note …... have been performed previously [42–49]. The analysis procedure is well established and produces consistent nonflow contributions.”

I think “produces comparable non flow” could be a bit misleading the references [42-49] include small systems. Isobar is not small but not the same as p/d+Au etc.


After the sentence: 
"STAR will continue the CME search with those data as well as data from the beam energy scan.” 

cite STAR BUR 2023-24:


I hope these help. 

Thanks and regards.
Best,
Prithwish



Prithwish Tribedy
Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973, USA
Phone: +1 631-344-8904, 631-344-3853
Fax: +1 631-344-4206
E-mail: prithwish2005 AT gmail.com

On Feb 14, 2024, at 5:49 AM, James Dunlop via Star-gpc-355-l <star-gpc-355-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:

A reminder to the GPC: please comment on this and all the other material by COB today.
Thank you,
  Jamie
PS  On this letter, a few minor edits:
  in the Validity bullet (l. 44) make it "There seems to be no question on this point from both referees" (need a "to be") 
   Innovation bullet (ll. 52-53) take the last phrase and make it "to which the field has not paid focused attention until now, is innovative"
     to avoid the awkward "to until"
     also, just a taste thing, feel free to accept or reject: "The very fact that" -> "That"

   l. 59: "my manuscript" -> "our manuscript"


On Feb 13, 2024, at 2:13 PM, Feng, Yicheng <feng216 AT purdue.edu> wrote:

Hi GPC, 

We have added a paragraph (lines 30-39) to the appeal letter and made some minor editorial changes. 
The revised version can be found through the link below: 

I'm sorry if this update causes you any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Yicheng for the PAs
From: James Dunlop <dunlop AT bnl.gov>
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Feng, Yicheng <feng216 AT purdue.edu>
Cc: James Dunlop <dunlop AT bnl.gov>; STAR GPC #355 <star-gpc-355-l AT lists.bnl.gov>; Wang, Fuqiang <fqwang AT purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Replies to the referees' comments for the short and long papers of the isobar CME baseline study
 
---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----

Dear GPC,
  Let's take a look at these over the weekend and please send any comments by COB next
Wed.  Thanks,
  Jamie


On Feb 9, 2024, at 2:24 PM, Feng, Yicheng <feng216 AT purdue.edu> wrote:

Hi GPC, 

We have prepared replies to the referees' comments and modified the manuscripts accordingly. 
For the short paper, we have also written a letter of appeal at the beginning of the reply. 

The related materials have been uploaded to the drupal webpage: 
or directly through the links below:
→short paper
→long paper

If you have any comments or questions, please let us know. 

Sincerely,
Yicheng for the PAs

--
He/Him/His
Please do not feel obligated to respond to this message outside of your work hours.
James C Dunlop  Ph.: (631) 344-7781                       
Building 510A          Cell: (631)316-8153
P.O. Box 5000                      
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973

--
He/Him/His
Please do not feel obligated to respond to this message outside of your work hours.
James C Dunlop Ph.: (631) 344-7781                       
Building 510A         Cell: (631)316-8153
P.O. Box 5000                      
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973









_______________________________________________
Star-gpc-355-l mailing list
Star-gpc-355-l AT lists.bnl.gov
https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-gpc-355-l


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page