STAR HardProbes PWG

[Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu>]

Hi Nihar,

Thanks for the signoff. I put the latest version on drupal.

Tong Liu

Ph.D. Student '2023 

Physics Dept., Yale University

Tel: 203-435-2130

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:05 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Hi Tong,

> consistent with unity beyond 2 GeV. Do you think it's a good idea if I
> say > 2 GeV here?
For this proceedings, let's keep as it is, we can discuss more on it in
future as you are doing some studies on it.

Besides, I have further additional comments that I missed probably last
time.
With this I sign off.

_ use "and" instead of "&" (L59)
_ "even above 1 at " (L60) and similarly in L133, use "unity" or "one"
instead of "1" in sentence.


Cheers
Nihar


On 2022-07-20 23:55, Tong Liu wrote:
> Hi Nihar,
>
> Thanks for the comments. Regarding your last point, the STAR d+Au
> measurement reports >=1 RdAu in ~1.5-7 GeV; the ALICE p+Pb 5.02 TeV
> measurement reports pi+ and pi- separately, and they are all
> consistent with unity beyond 2 GeV. Do you think it's a good idea if I
> say > 2 GeV here?
>
> I applied your other comments and updated the draft on drupal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tong Liu
> Ph.D. Student '2023
> Physics Dept., Yale University
>
> Tel: 203-435-2130
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 1:50 AM Nihar Sahoo <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Tong,
>>
>> Please find my additional comments on your revised proceedings
>> (Received
>> July 10).
>>
>> L54: "This gives us confidence …" -> "This corroborates…"
>> L56-57"…note that the Zr+Zr RAA is systematically slightly higher
>> …" ->
>> Within uncertainty, they are consistent with Ru+Ru and we don't need
>> to
>> mention "systematically slightly higher "; hence I suggest to drop
>> this
>> and stop at " The Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr R_AA….within uncertainty."
>> L62: "...at intermediate pT [5,8] " Can you please find out and
>> unequivocally mention the pT range used in these papers for those
>> collision systems? It would be very clear in this proceedings.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Nihar
>>
>> On 2022-07-17 23:26, Tong Liu wrote:
>>> Hi Nihar,
>>>
>>> Please use this link instead:
>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59797. For whatever reason I
>>> created two duplicate links; sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>> Tong Liu
>>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>>
>>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 12:56 AM Nihar Sahoo
>> <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Tong,
>>>>
>>>> Can you please send your updated proceedings Drupal submission
>> link?
>>>> It seems this link doesn't work from my side.
>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59798
>>>>
>>>> Nihar
>>>>
>>>> On 2022-07-15 23:22, Tong Liu wrote:
>>>>> Hi Yi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the confirmation. Nihar, Barbara, and Sooraj, could
>> you
>>>>> please also take a look and check for any further comments?
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Tong Liu
>>>>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>>>>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>>>>
>>>>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 5:01 AM Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Tong,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the updated version and replies.
>>>>>> I don't have any further comments on your nice proceedings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Yi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> Yi Yang, Associate Professor
>>>>>> Department of Physics
>>>>>> National Cheng Kung University
>>>>>> Tainan, 701 Taiwan
>>>>>> E-Mail: yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw
>>>>>> Tel: +886-6-2757575 ext.65237
>>>>>> Fax: +886-6-2747995
>>>>>> Group Web: http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/~yiyang [1] [1] [1]
>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 12:32 PM Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Yi and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the comments; I have a few replies attached below. I
>>>>>> agree with those not listed/mentioned here and I've already
>>>>>> implemented them. Please find an updated version on drupal, and
>>>> see
>>>>>> if you have further comments. Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - L47: Just for my own education, why is it 5.1 GeV/c? Not 5.0?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason is kinda trivial: The pp reference we are comparing
>>>>>> against is binned that way. It has a bin from 4.8 to 5.1 GeV/c,
>>>> and
>>>>>> one from 5.1 to 6. We would’ve happily used 5 GeV if the
>>>> reference
>>>>>> were binned that way; and since it doesn’t make much
>> difference
>>>>>> anyway, in the HG-PYTHIA simulation we went back to the 5 GeV/c
>>>>>> threshold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Is it possible to move Fig 1 after L58? It seems better (to
>> me)
>>>>>> to see the descriptions before the plot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I’m just bad at latex, but I can’t find a way to do
>>>> so…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - L77 - 79: Just for my own education, I think the RAA results
>>>>>> (data points in Fig.1) are efficiency-corrected, right? Then,
>> why
>>>> do
>>>>>> you need simulation including detector effects?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but the random nature of detector inefficiency means the
>>>>>> centrality ranking might be shuffled in real data; e.g. an
>> events
>>>>>> who has 31 truth-level tracks but loses 4 of them could end up
>> in
>>>> a
>>>>>> more peripheral class than another with 30 tracks but only
>> loses
>>>> 2.
>>>>>> Since refmult mostly relies on low-pt tracks and peripheral
>>>> isobar
>>>>>> events already don’t have many tracks, this effect might’ve
>>>> been
>>>>>> substantial already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tong Liu
>>>>>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>>>>>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 5:58 AM Nihar Sahoo
>>>> <nihar AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Tong,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please send your latest proceedings link if you have
>>>>>> implemented
>>>>>> Yi's comment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-07-05 11:46, Yi Yang via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Tong,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry for the very late reply and thanks a lot for the
>> reminder
>>>> (I
>>>>>>> almost forgot this, very sorry about that).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the very nice proceedings.
>>>>>>> I only have some very minor comments/suggestions for your
>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>> - L7: in our community --> in heavy-io community (is it
>> better?
>>>>>>> Totally up to you.)
>>>>>>> - L9: Do you need this bracket? I would remove it.
>>>>>>> - L13: high pT --> high transverse momenta (pT)
>>>>>>> - L14: low transverse momenta (pT) --> low pT
>>>>>>> - L25: Add some references from the BES program?
>>>>>>> - L33: It would be good to specify the collision systems, say
>>>>>>> Isobar, Au+Au, d+Au, and Cu+Cu.
>>>>>>> - L34: In section 3 we --> in section 3, we
>>>>>>> - L35: distribution --> distributions
>>>>>>> - L36: ratio --> ratios
>>>>>>> - L42: in [2] --> in Ref. [2]
>>>>>>> - L44: from [3] --> from Ref. [3]
>>>>>>> - L47: Just for my own education, why is it 5.1 GeV/c? Not
>> 5.0?
>>>>>>> - Is it possible to move Fig 1 after L58? It seems better (to
>>>>>> me)
>>>>>>> to see the descriptions before the plot.
>>>>>>> - L48: the quality -> the high statistics (? Up to you)
>>>>>>> - L53: [3] [4] [5] --> [3 - 5]   (I think you can just use
>>>>>> \cite{a,
>>>>>>> b, c}
>>>>>>> - L55: Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr RAA results --> The RAA results from
>>>>>> Ru+Ru
>>>>>>> and Zr+Zr   (Or "The Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr RAA results)
>>>>>>> - L67: in [6] --> in Ref. [6]
>>>>>>> - L73: I would use "0.2 GeV/c" (same unit as others).
>>>>>>> - L74: 5 GeV --> 5 GeV/c    (not 5.1 GeV/c ?)
>>>>>>> - L77 - 79: Just for my own education, I think the RAA results
>>>>>>> (data points in Fig.1) are efficiency-corrected, right? Then,
>>>> why
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> you need simulation including detector effects?
>>>>>>> - L88: in [10] --> in Ref. [10]
>>>>>>> - is it possible to move Fig.2 after L93? (up to you, too)
>>>>>>> - L101: I am not sure if the proceedings from the same
>>>>>> conference
>>>>>>> is a good reference. It is probably okay to link to his
>>>>>> presentation?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - L101: Isobar spectra --> the Isobar spectra
>>>>>>> - L114: similar comments as "Haojie's proceedings"
>>>>>>> - L119: "trigger" particles --> "triggered" particles
>>>>>>> - L120: trigger particles --> triggered particles
>>>>>>> - L131: Add a reference of the STAR forward upgrade (from
>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>> QM?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Yi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 12:09 PM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l
>>>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara, Nihar & all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know there are still a few weeks before QM proceedings are
>>>> due,
>>>>>>>> but could you please take another look at my latest version
>> to
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> if there are more comments? I would like to move forward with
>>>> it
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> get it out of the way as fast as we can. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tong Liu
>>>>>>>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>>>>>>>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:59 PM Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Barbara,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I have a few responses to some of
>>>> them;
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> have applied the rest of them to the updated version on
>> drupal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L57-58: "note that the Zr+Zr RAA is systematically slightly
>>>>>> higher
>>>>>>>> due to smaller Npart" - this is not very clear, do you mean
>>>> that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> average Npart in a given centrality bin is smaller for Zr+Zr
>>>>>> compare
>>>>>>>> to Ru+Ru ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes you’re right. I added “at the same centrality bin”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L104: medium production depends -> medium properties depend
>> (?
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> fully sure what you wanted to say here)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What we show in this chapter is the soft particles, which are
>>>>>>>> produced by QGP hadronization. So the yield presented here is
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> “medium production”.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L131: η coverage -> the η coverage
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to say… my
>> original
>>>>>> says
>>>>>>>> “the extended eta coverage offered by the new STAR forward
>>>>>>>> upgrade”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L133: studies to understand -> studies that help to
>> understand
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds a bit weird to me... I changed it to “studies
>>>> that
>>>>>>>> improve our understanding on ”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tong Liu
>>>>>>>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>>>>>>>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 5:36 AM Barbara Trzeciak
>>>>>>>> <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Tong,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nice proceedings.
>>>>>>>> Please see my minor comments for your consideration below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Barbara
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L29: "from different systems" -  it sounds redundant here
>>>>>>>> L31: evolves -> evolve
>>>>>>>> L33-34: hadron spectrum at 200 GeV -> hadron spectra at
>>>>>> sqrt{s_NN} =
>>>>>>>> 200 GeV
>>>>>>>> L48: above 5.1 GeV -> above 5.1 GeV/c
>>>>>>>> L49: 5% centrality bins -> 5%-wide centrality bins
>>>>>>>> L55: of collision system -> of the collision system
>>>>>>>> L57-58: "note that the Zr+Zr RAA is systematically slightly
>>>>>> higher
>>>>>>>> due to smaller Npart" - this is not very clear, do you mean
>>>> that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> average Npart in a given centrality bin is smaller for Zr+Zr
>>>>>> compare
>>>>>>>> to Ru+Ru ?
>>>>>>>> L61: effects becomes -> effects become
>>>>>>>> L65: up to 80% -> from 60% up to 80% peripheral events
>>>>>>>> L65:  and deviates ->  and deviate
>>>>>>>> L66: deviation at - deviation in
>>>>>>>> L67: HG-PYTHIA method -> HG-PYTHIA toy model
>>>>>>>> L75: >5 GeV charged particles -> charged particles with pT >
>> 5
>>>>>> GeV/c
>>>>>>>> FIg. 1 caption: above 5.1 GeV -> above pT of 5.1 GeV/c
>>>>>>>> Fig. 1 caption: HG-PYTHIA simulation modified from [6], see
>>>> text
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> detail ->HG-PYTHIA simulations modified from [6] are
>> presented
>>>> as
>>>>>>>> shaded bands, see text for detail.
>>>>>>>> L82:  of medium production ->  of the produced medium (?)
>>>>>>>> L85: the raw ratio -> the ratio of raw yields
>>>>>>>> L86: reveal quite some physics -> provide physics information
>>>>>>>> Fig 2 caption: collisions, binned in centrality -> collisions
>>>> as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> function of pT, in different centrality classes
>>>>>>>> L88: PID -> particle identification
>>>>>>>> L92:  a larger Npart and Ncoll ratio ->  larger Npart and
>> Ncoll
>>>>>>>> ratios
>>>>>>>> L93: in more peripheral collisions -> with increasing
>>>> centrality
>>>>>>>> L96: are higher than that -> is higher than that
>>>>>>>> L97: across centrality -> across centralities
>>>>>>>> L103: medium production depends -> medium properties depend
>> (?
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> fully sure what you wanted to say here)
>>>>>>>> L106: wouldn’t -> would not
>>>>>>>> L108:  54 GeV -> \sqrt{s_NN} =  54 GeV
>>>>>>>> L131: η coverage -> the η coverage
>>>>>>>> L133: studies to understand -> studies that help to
>> understand
>>>>>>>> L135: rely on -> depend on
>>>>>>>> L137: initial geometry -> the initial geometry
>>>>>>>> L138: a “suppression” -> maybe: R_AA < 1
>>>>>>>> L139-140: remove "comparisons of"
>>>>>>>> L140: particle yields -> particle yield ratios
>>>>>>>> L140: system -> systems
>>>>>>>> L141: a centrality-dependent ratio -> centrality dependence
>>>>>>>> L146: was found -> is found
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 12:01 AM Tong Liu via Star-hp-l
>>>>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Nihar,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks to the comments, I have implemented them and posted
>> them
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> drupal. The link is kinda funny probably because I created a
>>>>>>>> duplicate entry, so please find the pdf here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/QM22_Proceeding_TongLiu%20%281%29_0.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please responses to some your comments below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Line#25:  "dependencies" on what? like system size,
>>>> Temperature,
>>>>>>>> muB. Need to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mention what are those?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The dependencies I’m mentioning are system size and
>> collision
>>>>>>>> energies, which I talk about in the next sentence. I also
>>>>>> rephrased
>>>>>>>> the next sentence a bit to make it more coherent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Line#63 ":..note that the Zr+Zr RAA is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> systematically slightly larger due to smaller Npart,"-> I can
>>>> see
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ru and Zr RAA are consistent within uncertainty. Hence this
>>>>>>>> statement is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> not correct. Please remove this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see what you’re trying to say, but the uncertainty you
>> see
>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>> is mostly systematic, hence common across isobar species, and
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> be canceled when comparing Ru against Zr, as is done in
>> section
>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>> Therefore one should only focus on the central value here.
>>>>>>>> Line#150: "…found, photonuclear processes with high
>>>>>> multiplicity
>>>>>>>> .." ->
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "found in the photonuclear processes with high multiplicity
>>>> …"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latter part of the sentence is talking about future
>>>>>>>> measurements. That being said, since you removed the “high
>>>>>>>> multiplicity” part in Sec. 4, I removed the corresponding
>>>>>>>> statement here as well– though we need to confirm with
>>>>>> Prithwish
>>>>>>>> and Nicole.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Line#151: "…help us understand …" -> "…help us to
>>>>>>>> understand…"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe the “to” is optional here, and since we are
>> short
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> space anyway I suggest we leave it as is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tong Liu
>>>>>>>> Ph.D. Student '2023
>>>>>>>> Physics Dept., Yale University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tel: 203-435-2130
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 11:05 AM Nihar Sahoo via Star-hp-l
>>>>>>>> <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello Tong,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please find below my 1st round of comments on your nice
>>>>>> proceedings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Line#8: To address these open questions we -> "To address
>> these
>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> questions, we…"
>>>>>>>> Line#12-16: Can you combine these three sentences into one
>> and
>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> repeating "we"?
>>>>>>>> Line#19-23: "Lastly, we present…at RHIC" -> "In addition,
>> we
>>>>>>>> present the
>>>>>>>> measurement of particle production and long-range di-hadron
>>>>>>>> correlations
>>>>>>>> in photonuclear processes in gamma+Au events using
>>>>>> ultra-peripheral
>>>>>>>> Au+Au collisions at RHIC." Something like this. To make it
>>>>>> concise
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the abstract.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Line#25: "Since the discovery of the quark-gluon plasma(QGP)"
>>>>>> Give
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> reference here.
>>>>>>>> "dependencies" on what? like system size, Temperature, muB.
>>>> Need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> mention what are those?
>>>>>>>> Line#29: "RHIC doesn’t only provide us with a large and
>>>>>> flexible
>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>> of energies.."-> "RHIC provides a wide range of collision
>>>>>> energies
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> variety of system size covering…"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Line#31: "Further, ensembles with…" -> "Furthermore, the
>>>>>> collision
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> system with …" end with a period.
>>>>>>>> Line#34: "jet quenching and flow " are not medium properties.
>>>>>> Like
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "flow" and "collectivity" are the same properties of QGP.
>>>>>>>> Please rephrase this sentence,
>>>>>>>> LIne#37:-38 "For the first two sections, we focus on
>>>> …spectrum"
>>>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>>> needed and you can drop it. As you going through Section-2
>> and
>>>> -3
>>>>>>>> individually in next sentences.
>>>>>>>> Line#38: "...the high-pT spectrum and show the nuclear
>>>>>> modification
>>>>>>>> (RAA)… hard partons in the medium. " ->"… the high-pT
>>>> charged
>>>>>>>> hadrons
>>>>>>>> spectra and compare their nuclear modification factor (RAA)
>> in
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> collision systems".
>>>>>>>> LIne#40: "Then in section 3…" -> "In Section
>>>> 3,…"
Line#42:
>>>>>>>> "Finally in
>>>>>>>> section 4,…" ->" Finally, in section-4,.."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Section-2 title:
>>>>>>>> I would not say " hard partons" because we probe hard partons
>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> jet
>>>>>>>> measurement, here we measure "inclusive charged hadrons".
>>>>>>>> Line#47: "…event and …" -> "…event, and …" Line#51:
>>>>>>>> "…high-pT partons
>>>>>>>> …" -> "…high-pT charged hadrons …" (for reason see
>>>>>>>> above)
Line#54: "…we
>>>>>>>> are able to perform…" -> ", we perform…"
>>>>>>>> Line#55: "&" -> and
Line#63 ":..note that the Zr+Zr RAA is
>>>>>>>> systematically slightly larger due to smaller Npart,"-> I can
>>>> see
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>> Ru and Zr RAA are consistent within uncertainty. Hence this
>>>>>>>> statement is
>>>>>>>> not correct. Please remove this.
>>>>>>>> Line#69: "However, our data in peripheral collisions show
>> that
>>>>>> RAA
>>>>>>>> starts  to decrease again beyond 60%,
>>>>>>>> " -> However, the values of RAA in Isobar collisions with
>>>> Npart<
>>>>>> 20
>>>>>>>> starts to decrease up to 80%,…" LIne#71: "Currently our
>>>>>> suspicion
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> …event selection and geometry biases.." -> I would not
>>>> mention
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> suspicion. How about. "The event selection and geometrical
>>>> biases
>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> contribute to this deviation at peripheral events in Isobar
>>>>>>>> collisions
>>>>>>>> like demonstrated by the HG-PYTHIA method in …"
Can you
>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>> inform
>>>>>>>> about this HG-PYTHIA?
>>>>>>>> LIne#85: …more direct properties …" Can you please
>> mention
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> those "direct properties" of the medium? Line#94-96: This
>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>> needs a citation.
>>>>>>>> Line#101-102: "We hope to study the ratio…" -> "We plan to
>>>>>> study
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> ratio…"
>>>>>>>> "…extract more kinetic and thermal …" ->"…extract the
>>>>>> kinetic
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> thermal…"
>>>>>>>> Line#110: "…pushing our limits to the low end"  Not clear;
>>>> what
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> low end ? You need to mention.
Comment: In this section-4,
>> it
>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>> better if you could introduced what is gamma+A event is.
>>>>>>>> LIne#119: "For this we form pairs by selecting charged …"
>> ->
>>>>>> "For
>>>>>>>> this,
>>>>>>>> we…'
>>>>>>>> In Eq.1, you need to mention what is "n"? Like different
>> order
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> harmonics   Line#130: "within the measurement uncertainties"
>> ->
>>>>>>>> "within
>>>>>>>> the uncertainties." ( all uncertainties in experiments are
>>>>>> measured
>>>>>>>> uncertainties)
>>>>>>>> Line#131: "High activity events will be explored in future. "
>>>> Not
>>>>>>>> required.
>>>>>>>> Line#133: "…    Run-25 data on √sNN = 200 GeV Au+Au
>>>>>> collisions,"
>>>>>>>> ->
>>>>>>>> "…Run-25 data in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200
>>>>>>>> GeV,"
Line#137:"…       the
>>>>>>>> QGP in small and medium systems, " -> "…the QGP in
>> different
>>>>>>>> collision
>>>>>>>> systems,"
>>>>>>>> Line#138: "…    are shown " -> "are discussed."
>>>>>>>> Line#140: "…    driven by Npart,  regardless of initial
>>>>>>>> geometry;…" ->
>>>>>>>> "…driven by Npart regardless of initial geometry." (Finish
>>>> this
>>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>>> here)
>>>>>>>> Line#140-142: "..although in peripheral …
>>>>>> .“suppression”
>>>>>>>> is observed ."
>>>>>>>> -> Start a new sentence here. "The observed suppression in
>>>>>>>> peripheral
>>>>>>>> events in isobar collisions may be due to the event selection
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> geometry bias in the measurement."
>>>>>>>> Line#150: "…found, photonuclear processes with high
>>>>>> multiplicity
>>>>>>>> .." ->
>>>>>>>> "found in the photonuclear processes with high multiplicity
>>>> …"
>>>>>>>> Line#151: "…help us understand …" -> "…help us to
>>>>>>>> understand…"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Nihar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-06-01 00:07, webmaster--- via Star-hp-l wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear Star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov members,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tong Liu (tong.liu AT yale.edu) has submitted a material for a
>>>>>>>> review,
>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>> have a look:
>>>>>>>>> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/node/59798
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> If you have any problems with the review process, please
>>>> contact
>>>>>>>>> webmaster AT www.star.bnl.gov
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!D00DoqNoKno6xfSJTjiHvqotBsZ8HyOX-Sr9rds3_VE2DLj3cz6UxQ-r0fsiF2rntvilDvLuQcszkutadslRoM4$
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1]
>>>
>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GsF8MBGWx_BSYP53FEU_grYYbFjnh8IQUo6sCw6I04C1U1v15lu1Tzfw3TQfRyoBQ_fGR6vj-JOilh8o1E63I1g$
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!GiRkfiJ7TFSWlS5dUoJSn1rRMiBNPQqcIod0QVG7xaRk71o7O-BQ1B9s7e4xJAX_hGUaXIt3feAq1zVRrUghrEM$