STAR HardProbes PWG

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

Hi all,

As the deadline is approaching, can you take another look and see if there are any comments, and if you are all okay with it, can someone push this to STAR talks? Thanks!

Tong Liu

Ph.D. Student '2023 

Physics Dept., Yale University

Tel: 203-435-2130

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:20 AM Tong Liu <tong.liu AT yale.edu> wrote:

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$