STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yuanjing Ji <jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>]

Dear convenors,

Thank you for your comments. I have prepared my responses and updated 
the paper and AN note accordingly.
Updated paper and note:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HFe_v2_paper_2022sep27.pdf
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_analysis_note_2022sep27.pdf
Paper difference between updated and previous version:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/difference_sep27_may22.pdf

Please find my response to your comments below:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Sooraj_paper.pdf
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/sooraj_note_2nd.pdf
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/barbara_paper_2nd.pdf
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_note_2nd.pdf

Website of the low energy HF electron paper:
https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/jiyj/NPEweb

Best
Yuanjing

On 2022-06-23 12:19, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Dear Yuanjing,
>    Sorry for the delayed response. Thanks for taking into account my
> comments and the updated version of the analysis note. I am fine with
> the responses and the updated note.
>
> One further clarification on Q38:
> Is the estimate from using only the near-side used anywhere in the
> results? It seems quite arbitrary to assume that the lower limit for
> non-flow is when near-side has no modifications and away side gets
> completely washed out! We do know near side shape also changes. Plus,
> if you are not using the full phi range (with flat values beyond pi/2)
> to calculate here it would be wrong too, because v2 should be defined
> in the full phi range as the Fourier functions are orthogonal only in
> the full range. You wont be calculating v2 with a limited range. If
> this part is not used in the results, I suggest to exclude it from the
> note
>
> Also on the section 11.1, now significance figures are quoted for eHF
> and phi v2 compared to pi v2 at lower energies. Its stated the eHF v2
> at 27 GeV is 1..85 sigma lower than eHF v2 at 54.4 GeV and phi v2 at
> 27 GeV. However, from the error bars in the plot (Fig 79), they are
> within 1 sigma. How are these numbers calculated?
>
> Please find some comments from me on the paper draft below:
>
> Abstract: As the error bars are large, I think we should not make any
> conclusions for the measurements from 27 GeV in the abstract than
> stating its zero within large uncertainties. Also the claim of
> thermalization from collectivity can be questioned by referees. The
> last sentence of the abstract reads disconnected. Have to explain what
> particles are compared and for what quantity/dependence. If the last
> sentence is based on Fig.9, its too strong a conclusion. The last
> points for phi and eHF are within one sigma from the pion data points,
> can hardly make the conclusion in the abstract. The abstract I believe
> is already strong with the measurement of comparable v2 for eHF at
> 54.4 GeV as at 200 GeV and the inferences drawn from it
> Abstract L1: We report on
> Abstract L4: v2 in Au+Au --> in Au+Au
>
> Abstract L9: hadrons at this energy
>
> L4: extremely
> L7: is created
> L10: microscopic structure is unclear here, please consider rephrasing
> L15: Remove sentence starting 'The carry ..'
> L22: LHC energies
> L56: passing the selection
> L59: at similar energies --> at 62.4 and 39 GeV respectively
> L84: particle species and the merged pions .... particle samples -->
> samples
> Fig.1 It might be useful to indicate also the merged pion band
> L116: why including is needed here?
> L131: You have to specify at which energies
> L156: reaction plane --> second order event plane
> L158: The event plane is ... this sentence can be removed
> L182: Are these difference used in systematic uncertainty evaluation.
> Did I miss that in the note? Why should the difference inform on
> systematic uncertainties?
> L212: Are there no discussions on systematic uncertainties on eff_reco
> and N_pho evaluation and v2_pho evaluation? And uncertainties for
> various extrapolations considered?
> L230: Does diffusion at different temperatures cause largely different
> v2? Can a reference be added for this sentence?
>
> L234: I think this speculation should be avoided, given the precision
> of the data
> L258: Why there is no discussion on the disagreement at lower pT?
> L276: How is this done? The reverse mapping is not possible? Is it
> from the average? I dont see the discussion on the note regarding
> this. In the note a specific pT range for eHF v2 is quoted
> L288: It should be modified as hint of drop
> L289: Its a strong conclusion to draw from such a limited significance
>
> L299: At low pT (< 1 GeV/c), this is not consistent, as shown in Fig.
> 8. So need to be careful here
> L302: QCD --> QGP
>
> thanks
> Sooraj
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 9:43 PM Barbara Trzeciak
> <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Yuanjing,
> >
> > thanks for the answers and the new version of the AN and the draft.
> > I have a few remaining comments, please see below. And I will send
> > my comment to the paper draft soon.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Barbara
> >
> > Replies:
> > (18) - Have you considered relaxation of the mean and width
> > parameters for the sys. unc. estimation?
> > _- In systematic uncertainty estimation, we also directly take the
> > normalized nSigmaE histograms, instead of gaussian functions, as the
> > templates to carry out purity fitting. So the uncertainties from the
> > description of the particles’ nSigmaE shape, including mean and
> > width, will be taken into account. And considering the statistics
> > under most of the momentum bins, uncertainty from mean and width are
> > quite small. Also when carrying out template fitting to extract
> > purity, we have already had 5 free parameters (particle yields), so
> > it is not suitable to add more free parameters_
> >
> > Yes, but at very low pT the sys. unc. on the purity are not even
> > visible with the current variations. Maybe then, even if the means
> > and withs from the fits to the pure hadron and electron samples have
> > small uncertainties, they will give a not negligible effect compared
> > to the other variations that you use currently for the sys. unc.
> > estimation. My point is not to relax the mean and the sigma fully,
> > but from your fits to the pure samples you get values that have some
> > uncertainties, you can then put limits on the mean and width in the
> > total fit to e.g. mean +/- 3unc. Also, up to 0.33 the merged pions
> > don't fit so well in the total fit.
> >
> > AN:
> > - nSigmaE fits for 27 GeV: here I spotted that in some bins the
> > electron fit is taken over by hadrons. Between momentum of 1 and
> > ~1.1 GeV/c and then in the 0.53-0.55 GeV/c range the electron
> > gaussian is replaced by the Kaon gaussian. This is probably because
> > you don't constrain the yields for 27 GeV and shouldn't change your
> > results (I think all of these cases are in the excluded regions),
> > but still it would be good to update it for future. And I think it's
> > better to have consistent methods for 54 and 27 GeV.
> >
> > - Purity estimation: what is the reason to take histograms for pions
> > instead of constraints based on the gaussian fits to these
> > distributions? The gaussian shape looks to describe the pion
> > distribution well. Taking this variation as the sys. unc. introduces
> > quite large unc. at higher pT where it seems to me that it might be
> > driven by the statistical fluctuation in the pion histograms.  For
> > the cases where you use histograms for pions in the total fit, could
> > you please add stat. unc. on the purity distribution ? I'm making
> > this point also because the purity for 54 GeV at 2-2.5 GeV/c is
> > larger than 95% and if the unc. were smaller there, this range could
> > be usable for the v2 calculation. This drop is not visible for 27
> > GeV when using histogram when you use wider bins, so I wonder if
> > this sys. for 54 GeV is not driven by the statistical fluctuations
> > in the pion sample - you don't have many entries in the tails of
> > your pion distribution and then when you normalise it for the total
> > fit, these fluctuations are enhanced.
> >
> > - L366: missing figure number
> > - L433: missing figure number
> > - "The 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙 in Au+Au 39 and 62.4 GeV are also taken
> > from PHENIX direct photon paper [20] and PhD thesis on this
> > measurement [34]." - why do you take Ncoll from the PHENIX paper,
> > not from independent Glauber calculations ?
> > - Fig. 20: are these plots for 62. 4 GeV ? If so, it's missliding to
> > label them "Au+Au 54.4 GeV", I would change it to "Au+Au 62.4 GeV"
> > and explain in the text that these spectra are used for the 54.4 GeV
> > analysis.
> > - Fig.26 and 27: you've changed binning for some of the sys. unc.
> > sources, which could be fine, but a bit confusing because different
> > sources now have different binning and it's also not clear how then
> > the total sys. unc. in the fine binning is obtained. I would use the
> > same binning for all the sources, it should correspond to the
> > binning that you have for the reconstruction efficiency.
> > Also, there is no unc. for the lowest pT bin for nHitsFit.
> > L483: uncertainty for is given in Fig. 26. Figure 29 shows - there's
> > a missing word "for ... is", also Fig.26 and 27, and Figures 28 and
> > 29 show.
> > With the reconstruction efficiency obtained from the embedding
> > simulation -> is it the same as the combined reconstruction
> > efficiency that you describe ? What's the difference between
> > efficiencies in Fig.28,29 and fig. 37?
> > L578: flatten Fig. ??(a) -> missing figure number
> > Fig. 63, 64: why for 54.4 you have Npho stat (data) and Npho stat
> > (embed) while for 27 GeV there's only one contribution: Npho stat,
> > is it only from data ? And why the Npho stat (embed) for 54.4 has
> > quite a big contribution, larger than sys. unc. in some bins ?
> > Fig. 80: second HFe v2 point at 27 GeV is missing.
> >
> > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:46 PM Yuanjing Ji <jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear convenors,
> > >
> > > I would like to draw your attention that the updated NPE v2 note,
> > > paper
> > > as well as the responses to convenors' comments have been sent to
> > > PWG
> > > for more than two weeks. I am wondering do you have any further
> > > comments
> > > on the low-energy NPE v2 paper and note?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Best
> > > Yuanjing
> > >
> > > On 2022-05-10 16:42, Yuanjing Ji via Star-hf-l wrote:
> > > > Dear convenors,
> > > >
> > > > Again, thank you for your valuable comments. We have updated our
> > > > notes/paper draft and prepared responses to your comments.
> > > Please find
> > > > the details below. We would like to get your sign-off and move
> > > on to
> > > > GPC.
> > > >
> > > > Paper draft:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Heavy_Flavor_Electron_v2_at_27_and_54_4_Au_Au_Collisions_May10.pdf
> > > > Note:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_at_Au_Au_27_and_54_4_GeV_analysis_note_May10.pdf
> > > > Website: https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/jiyj/NPEweb
> > > >
> > > > Response to convenors:
> > > > Comments to Note:
> > > > response to Sooraj:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Sooraj_NPE_v2_note_May10.pdf
> > > > response to Barbara:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_NPE_v2_note_May10.pdf
> > > > response to Yi:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Yang_NPE_v2_note_May10.pdf
> > > > Comments to Paper:
> > > > response to Barbara:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_NPE_v2_paper_May10.pdf
> > > > response to Yi:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Yi_yang_NPE_v2_paper_May10.pdf
> > > > Best
> > > > Yuanjing
> > > >
> > > > On 2021-07-01 21:22, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > > > Dear Yuanjing,
> > > > > Sorry for the late reply on this. Please find some comments
> > > from me
> > > > > on the nicely prepared analysis note below
> > > > >
> > > > > L 37: if constructing --> for reconstructing
> > > > > Fig 1. Do you also have a plot of the pT correlation of the
> > > electron
> > > > > and parent HF hadron? Would be good to see what the parent pT
> > > the pT_e
> > > > > > 1.2 GeV/c correspond to
> > > > > Fig 4b. Do you have a similar plot for 27 GeV?
> > > > > L 55: is nToFMatch same as TOF multiplicity?
> > > > > L 112: What does the primary track requirement have in addition
> > > to DCA
> > > > > cut?
> > > > > Fig 7: For the merged pions, are these the selected sample? It
> > > doesnt
> > > > > seem to correspond to the band in Fig.6b. How can by selecting
> > > on
> > > > > large nSigma_pi a merged pion pure sample be selected at higher
> > > pT
> > > > > where TOF PID is not so clean?
> > > > > Fig 8: Can you include the PID fits for other pT regions in the
> > > > > appendix?
> > > > > L 148: What about overlap regions with K, merged pi or proton?
> > > > > L 149: Are these checks only for regions with significant pi
> > > overlap?
> > > > > Fig 9.a What eta range is this for?
> > > > > Eq 8 Is there any energy dependence for the spectra to be taken
> > > here
> > > > > as the data are for 39 and 62.4 GeV?
> > > > > Eq 11: Could you specify the low and high pT regions for the
> > > input
> > > > > gamma spectra from data or p+p scaled?
> > > > > Fig 15: There doesnt seem to be a smooth continuation between
> > > the low
> > > > > pT scaling and the high pT pQCD regions. And there is energy
> > > > > dependence for the pQCD part. How is this accomodated in the
> > > > > weighting?
> > > > >
> > > > > L 202: What are the eta weights taken for the parent particle
> > > > > distributions? Are they taken to be flat? Is there any
> > > systematic
> > > > > checks on efficiency determination done from this?
> > > > > L 209: why is this factor needed? There is already
> > > normalization for
> > > > > pT and by number of parent particles. Is this different for
> > > different
> > > > > sources?
> > > > > Fig 54, 55: What are the partner electron pT in these figures?
> > > Is it
> > > > > all pT?
> > > > > Fig 54-56: Are these for 54.4 GeV? could you specify? Can the
> > > 27 GeV
> > > > > plots also be added for completion?
> > > > > Fig 18: Could you add a brief description describing how the
> > > error
> > > > > bands shown is obtained?
> > > > > Eq 13: I am a bit confused here. Shouldnt you just multiply the
> > > > > efficiency with a correction factor Rcut,MC/Rcut,data, where
> > > Rcut is
> > > > > the fraction of normalized counts from a cut? Wouldnt this
> > > account for
> > > > > the shape difference between data and MC in the efficiency
> > > > > calculation?
> > > > >
> > > > > L 232, 233: typos in comparison symbols
> > > > >
> > > > > Fig 21: How does this impact the efficiency calculation? There
> > > is a
> > > > > momentum shift depending on the conversion vertex position,
> > > should
> > > > > this be taken into account in the efficiency calculation?
> > > > >
> > > > > L 240: Could you have a small separate paragraph/section for
> > > the Ke3
> > > > > --> e contribution? Why is it discussed together with
> > > efficiency? The
> > > > > 30% and 10% quoted are fractions of eHF?
> > > > >
> > > > > Fig 24: What are the systematic uncertainties shown here? Is
> > > this the
> > > > > combined uncertainty from phe efficiency and purity
> > > calculations?
> > > > > L 246-252: Many typos in comparison symbols, please fix
> > > > >
> > > > > Fig 26b: Why are the 27 GeV values not shown? Could this be
> > > added?
> > > > > Fig 27a: Is the recentering and flattening done in small
> > > centrality
> > > > > bins or for the 0-60% centrality? Will this introduce any bias?
> > > Can
> > > > > the inclusive v2 be checked for EP flattened in 5% and 0-60%
> > > > > centrality bins?
> > > > >
> > > > > L 258 and other places: reconstructed electrons -->
> > > reconstructed
> > > > > photonic electrons
> > > > >
> > > > > L 274: A scaling looking at BES energy dependence for v2 should
> > > let
> > > > > you extrapolate to the 54.4 Gev from 62.4 GeV, isnt? or similar
> > > for 27
> > > > > GeV
> > > > >
> > > > > L 285: This paragraph is not clear. Why do you need to flatten
> > > the
> > > > > input phi distribution? You are sampling from a distribution,
> > > the
> > > > > statistical fluctuations should be kept for a meaningful
> > > statistical
> > > > > uncertainties on your final calculated phe v2 values. Do you
> > > have a
> > > > > plot showing the impact of this weight on the evaluated phe v2?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eq 33: So with this, the v2 is calculated for different partner
> > > pT
> > > > > values? What is the x-axis in Fig 34?
> > > > >
> > > > > After Eq 33: Do you have a figure describing this reweighting?
> > > What is
> > > > > F_reco a function of? pT? May be Im confused here a bit, what
> > > is the
> > > > > distinction between reconstructed electron and photonic
> > > electron here?
> > > > > Eq 34: What are the number of points here referring to? Is this
> > > for
> > > > > the uncertainty in the scale factor c? What are data and sim
> > > values
> > > > > referring to here? This part might need a bit more expansion
> > > and
> > > > > figures.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eq 38: subscript should be sys in the second equation
> > > > >
> > > > > L 308: What makes the phe v2 uncertainties largest? This was as
> > > > > mentioned above not quite clear as to what goes into the
> > > estimation
> > > > > L 319+: many comparison symbol typo
> > > > >
> > > > > L 341: Fig reference missing
> > > > >
> > > > > Fig 43: What is the reason for the double peaked structure of
> > > the ke3
> > > > > fractions? Arent the quality cuts pT independent?
> > > > >
> > > > > Fig 46: This was discussed before I guess, only the full range
> > > > > calculation makes sense for v2. If you use only the near side
> > > range,
> > > > > then by definition, v2 vales will be different.
> > > > >
> > > > > L 412+ Again many symbol typos, please fix
> > > > >
> > > > > L 465: Is the low pT difference not significant? what could
> > > cause this
> > > > > difference?
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Sooraj
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:59 PM Yuanjing Ji
> > > <jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Barbara and Yi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the very nice comments. I will send the updated
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > once I address all the comments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > > Yuanjing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2021-06-17 12:30, Barbara Trzeciak wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Yuanjing,
> > > > > > > please find my comment to the paper draft below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Barbara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paper draft comments:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - abstract:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Heavy flavor electron (e HF ) v2 in Au+Au √sNN = 54.4 GeV
> > > > > > > collisions -> Heavy flavor electron (e HF ) v2 in Au+Au
> > > collisions
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > √sNN = 54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -  of 200 GeV -> at √sNN = 200 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - "their parent charm hadron v2" - but you consider here D
> > > > > > mesons
> > > > > > > only not B ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - The measured e HF v2 in 54.4 GeV -> The measured e HF v2 at
> > > > > > 54.4
> > > > > > > GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - thermal equilibrium in Au+Au 54.4 GeV collisions - >thermal
> > > > > > > equilibrium in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - in Au+Au √sNN = 27 GeV -> in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =
> > > 27
> > > > > > GeV
> > > > > > > - This indicates a hint -> This hints
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - "The energy dependence of particle v2 reveals the quark
> > > mass
> > > > > > > hierarchy in the process of thermalization in high-energy
> > > nuclear
> > > > > > > collisions" - This statement might be too strong. It's hard
> > > to say
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > we can conclude so based on HF results in fig. 8 that have
> > > large
> > > > > > > uncertainties. Please also see my comments to the AN
> > > regarding
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > - Figures: on some figures you have "Au+Au Collisions 0-60%"
> > > in
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > "Au+Au 0-60%" or "Au+Au Collisions" - please unify this among
> > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > figures
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L3: theory to describe strong interaction in laboratory ->
> > > > > > theory
> > > > > > > that describes strong interactions
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L8: you cite here RHIC papers only [1,2], while in the text
> > > you
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > mention LHC.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L8: of current heavy ion experiments -> of the current
> > > heavy ion
> > > > > > > experiments
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L14: comparable to larger -> comparable or larger
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L20: There are quite significant experimental achievements
> > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > charm hadron elliptic flow (v2) [7, 8, 9] and nuclear
> > > modification
> > > > > > > factor (RAA) measurements -> There are many experimental
> > > results
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > the charm hadron elliptic flow (v2) [7,9,9] and nuclear
> > > > > > modification
> > > > > > > factor (RAA)  [10, 11, 12, 13]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L22: at top RHIC -> at the top RHIC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L24: with the -> in the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L25: are coupled with the QGP medium strongly -> are
> > > strongly
> > > > > > > coupled with the QGP medium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L26: using the single electrons from heavy flavor decays ->
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > single electrons from open-charm and -bottom hadron decays
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L27: show -> provide
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L27: there are also ATLAS resutls on muons from HF decays
> > > in
> > > > > > Pb+Pb
> > > > > > > at 5.02 TeV: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595
> > > [1] [1]
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > - L30: at critical temperature region -> around the critical
> > > > > > > temperature
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L33: for heavy flavor program will be focusing on further
> > > -> of
> > > > > > > heavy flavor program is to further
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L34: remove "uncertainty"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L 36: RHIC top energy region will offer -> RHIC top energy
> > > > > > offers
> > > > > > > - L37: this QGP transport parameter. -> the QGP transport
> > > > > > parameter,
> > > > > > > D_s.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L28: Previously RHIC experiments have conducted  ->
> > > Previously,
> > > > > > RHIC
> > > > > > > experiments conducted
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L40: contained large uncertainties statistically and
> > > > > > systematically
> > > > > > > -> have large statistically and systematically uncertainties
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L41: such that one cannot -> therefore one cannot
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L46: used in the analysis -> utilized in this analysis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L52: used in the analysis for tracking -> used for tracking
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L55: for -> of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L56: The data sample statistics -> The statistics of the
> > > data
> > > > > > sample
> > > > > > > - L63: require -> is required
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L65-66: converted in high detector material density area ->
> > > > > > > converted in areas of high detector material density
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L67: Electron tracks are first selected by -> Electron are
> > > > > > > identified using
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L69: and required -> and are required
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L74: electron samples -> electrons
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L75: and PID cuts -> and particle identification (PID) cuts
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L75: called as -> called
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L77-78: Merged pion happens when TPC cannot seperate two
> > > pion
> > > > > > tracks
> > > > > > > due to finite resolution -> Merged pions is a sample of two
> > > pion
> > > > > > > tracks that cannot by separated due to the finite resolution
> > > of
> > > > > > TPC.
> > > > > > > - Fig.1 caption: (Plot(a) depicts the dE/dx distribution of
> > > the
> > > > > > tracks
> > > > > > > that pass TOF PID -> (a) dE/dx distribution of tracks that
> > > pass
> > > > > > TOF
> > > > > > > PID
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The purity of inclusive electron samples after both dE/dx and
> > > TOF
> > > > > > PID
> > > > > > > cuts is shown in plot(b). -> (b): purity of the inclusive
> > > electron
> > > > > > > sample after both dE/dx and TOF PID in Au+Au collisions at
> > > √ sNN
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > > 54 GeV. The gray band represents systematic uncertainties.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig.1a: a suggestion, it might be more useful to show an
> > > example
> > > > > > > projection of nSigmaE with a multi-gaussian fit
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L82: are used -> is used
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L83: electrons candidates -> electron candidates
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L83: add that nSigmaE projections are done in narrow
> > > momentum
> > > > > > bins
> > > > > > > - L84: the ratio of electron yields -> a ratio of the
> > > electron
> > > > > > yield
> > > > > > > - L84: over the integrated yields -> over the yield
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L85: within nσe cuts -> within the analysis nσe cut
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L88: crossover with electron -> cross with the electron
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L89: momentum range -> momentum ranges - give also
> > > approximate
> > > > > > > values of these ranges
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L89: the significant drop of electron purity -> a
> > > significant
> > > > > > drop
> > > > > > > of electron purity, as can be seen in Fig. 1(b).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L90: into systematic -> in the shown systematic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L92: description for -> description of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L93: remove -> exclude from the further analysis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L94: range within -> ranges of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig. 2 caption: Photonic electron partner pT (a) -> (a)
> > > Photonic
> > > > > > > electron partner pT - same for (b) and (c)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L97: decay -> decays
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L102: Tracks from inclusive electrons -> Inclusive electron
> > > > > > tracks
> > > > > > > - L103: called as tagged electron -> called tagged electrons
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L104: electrons -> electrons
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L108: are called as reconstruction -> are called
> > > reconstructed
> > > > > > > - L109: backgrounds of this method are estimated ->
> > > background is
> > > > > > > estimated
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L110: yields are -> yield is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L113-114:  is the e^pho reconstruction efficiency defined
> > > as the
> > > > > > > estimated e^reco yield over Npho . \epsilon^reco is
> > > determined by
> > > > > > > track quality cuts on partner electron and -> is the photonic
> > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > reconstruction efficiency that takes into account track
> > > quality
> > > > > > cuts
> > > > > > > applied on the partner electron and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L115: reconstruction cuts -> the reconstruction cuts
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig. 2: please move it closer to the place in the text
> > > where you
> > > > > > > describe it
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L117: STAR detector -> the STAR detector
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L117: photon -> photons
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L119: in Au+Au 39 and 62.4 GeV collisions -> in Au+Au
> > > collisions
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > √ sNN =  39 and 62.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L119-120: eta spectra is -> The \eta spectra are
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L122: as the real -> as in the real
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L123: of partner -> of the partner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L124:  tagged -> the tagged
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L124: Au+Au 54.4 GeV collisions -> Au+Au collisions at  √
> > > sNN
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > > 54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L127: TPC inner field cage -> the TPC inner field cage
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L128: shows a good description of data -> described the
> > > data
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > - L129: electrons contributed by Dalitz decay and photon
> > > > > > conversion in
> > > > > > > the total -> the electron contribution from the Dalitz decays
> > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > photon conversions to the total
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L131: mainly contributed by -> mostly from
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L133: efficiency are -> efficiency is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L134: black data point -> black points
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L137: are shown -> is shown
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L137-138:  Because the drop of charm hadrons production
> > > cross
> > > > > > > section as the decrease of energy is faster than those of
> > > light
> > > > > > > hadrons, -> Because the charm hadron production cross section
> > > > > > drops
> > > > > > > faster with the decreasing collision energy than the light
> > > hadron
> > > > > > > production cross section,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L141: here you write about the reaction plane, but later
> > > you
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > that you use event plane. Should be added that event plane is
> > > an
> > > > > > > estimation for the reaction plane in an experiment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L144: with opposite η sign of the electron -> in opposite
> > > η
> > > > > > region
> > > > > > > of the detector than the electron candidate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L145: are applied -> is applied
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L147:  event plane -> the  event plane
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L148: would be good what is the value of the resolution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L150: as -> as used for the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig. 3 caption:  (a): The relative fraction of electrons
> > > from
> > > > > > > various sources in the photonic electron sample, including:
> > > Dalitz
> > > > > > > decay ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Photonic electrons are consisted with various ingredients
> > > > > > including"-
> > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The total photonic electron reconstruction efficiency is
> > > shown as
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > solid points in panel (a) -> (b) The total photonic electron
> > > > > > > reconstruction efficiency shown as the solid points
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig. 4 caption: refer to bands and data points using they
> > > style
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > colors. The same comment to other figures.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > GeV collisions -> GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig. 5: use different area styles for the red and blue
> > > bands
> > > > > > > y-axis title: Electron Anisotropy -> v_2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L155-159: it's not clear from the text what is the
> > > reconstructed
> > > > > > > electron v2, why you show it and why you discuss
> > > uncertainties on
> > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > as what you need is the photonic electron v2. It's also not
> > > clear
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > do you obtain the unc. on the photonic electron v2. Please
> > > make
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > part more clear for a reader.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L161: inclusive electrons and their -> the inclusive
> > > electron
> > > > > > sample
> > > > > > > and the hadron
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L164: are estimated  by-> is estimated using
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L165: simulation -> simulations
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L165: TPC tracking efficiency are -> the TPC tracking
> > > efficiency
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > - L168: spectra is -> spectrum is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L168: Au+Au 62.4 GeV -> Au+Au collisions at  √ sNN = 62.4
> > > GeV
> > > > > > > - You don't comment on the kaon contribution at 27 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L180: are the multiplicity -> is the multiplicity
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L180: event plane -> the event plane
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L185-205: you don't discuss results below 1.2 GeV/c, it
> > > would be
> > > > > > > good to have some observations about the low pT part in this
> > > > > > paragraph
> > > > > > > as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L186:  27, 54.4 ->  27 and 54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L187:  and 200 GeV ->  and at  √ sNN = 200 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L189: in 54.4 GeV -> for 54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L190: contains much improved precision both statistically
> > > and
> > > > > > > systematically -> are more precise, both in terms of
> > > statistical
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > systematic uncertainties.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L195: in 54.4 GeV ->  at  √ sNN =  54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L196: so strongly with the QGP medium that they may also
> > > have
> > > > > > > reached -> strongly with the QGP medium and may reach
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L198: "although the collision energy is nearly a factor of
> > > 4
> > > > > > lower"
> > > > > > > - I think it's better to give an estimate of the difference
> > > in the
> > > > > > > initial energy density for the two energies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L201-202: ".. at temperature region close to the critical
> > > > > > > temperature. " - not sure if this statement is correct.  By
> > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > temperature you refer to which exactly temperature ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig. 7 at 54.4 GeV collisions -> in Au+Au collisions at √
> > > sNN
> > > > > > =
> > > > > > > 54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L211: "elastic collisional scatterings should dominate" -
> > > add
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > references to this statement
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L211: this low pT region that is covered in this analysis
> > > ->
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > the pT region covered by this analysis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Fig. 6 caption: 54.4 (black points) and 27 (green points)
> > > GeV ->
> > > > > > 54.4
> > > > > > > GeV (black points) and 27 GeV (green points). black points ->
> > > > > > full
> > > > > > > circles, same for other points.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L226: comparable -> consistent
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L228: centroid of data points -> measured central values
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L231:  is often different -> differ
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L232-233: To have a fair comparison between the charm
> > > hadron v2
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > identified particles v2 -> In order to compare v2 of charm
> > > hadrons
> > > > > > > with the identified particle v2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L236: calculate -> simulate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L237: follow the number-of-constituent-quark,  (mT −
> > > m0)/nq,
> > > > > > > scaling
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L238: as far as I understand, you use preliminary results
> > > for
> > > > > > light
> > > > > > > hadron v2 at 54 GeV. I think these results are now in GPC, so
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be good to use the updated results here, once they are
> > > published.
> > > > > > > Something to keep in mind for later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L240: with that of e^HF from data -> with the measured e^HF
> > > v2
> > > > > > > - L241: which is corresponding -> , that corresponds
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L242: have obtained -> obtain
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L242-243:  in Au+Au 54.4 GeV collisions. It suggests that
> > > the
> > > > > > charm
> > > > > > > quark may be close -> and maybe be close
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L244:  at Au+Au √ sNN = 54.4 GeV ->  in Au+Au collisions
> > > at
> > > > > > √
> > > > > > > sNN = 54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L249: at 7.7-200 GeV -> at  √ sNN = 7.7-200 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L250, 251:  at 2.76 TeV ->  at √ sNN = 2.76 TeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L250-252: e HF and φ v2 at 2.76 TeV are lack of minimum
> > > bias
> > > > > > > measurements and scaled to 0 − 60% centrality by
> > > eccentricity
> > > > > > [57]
> > > > > > > ->  Since there are no minimum bias measurements of e HF and
> > > φ v2
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > Pb+Pb collisions at √ sNN = 2.76 TeV, the results in
> > > narrower
> > > > > > > centrality ranges [ref] are scaled to 0 − 60% centrality by
> > > > > > > eccentricity [57].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L253: "while become much smaller at low energies" - this
> > > needs
> > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > quantified, within the uncertainties it's not so much smaller
> > > -
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > > also see comments to the AN regarding this. Also, D0 point is
> > > only
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > 200 GeV.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L255: "With decreasing collision energy, ..." - please see
> > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > on this statement in other places.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig. 8 doesn't have K as described in the text. Also, the
> > > phi
> > > > > > > results that you showed during the coll. meeting looked more
> > > > > > precise
> > > > > > > and further from pi v2 than the results on fig. 8. What has
> > > > > > changed ?
> > > > > > > The D0 point overlaps with the HFe point, I don't think it's
> > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > there, or maybe shift it a bit more. Please also see comments
> > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > AN on this results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Fig. 8: y-axis title, remove "@ <kT> .. .", add information
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > <kT> on the plot
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L261: in Au+Au 27 GeV collisions  -> in Au+Au collisions at
> > > √
> > > > > > sNN
> > > > > > > =  27 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L262: while e HF in 54.4 GeV collisions shows a significant
> > > > > > non-zero
> > > > > > > v2 -> while at  √ sNN =  54.4 GeV a significant non-zero v2
> > > is
> > > > > > > observed for pT < 2 GeV/c.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L263: to that of -> to that at
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L264: "Several transport model calculations under predict
> > > the
> > > > > > > measured .." - isn't the discrepancy below pT of 1 GeV/c and
> > > above
> > > > > > > there's agreement ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L268:  can still gain ->  gain
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L269: the evolution of the QCD medium -> the interactions
> > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > expanding QCD medium
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L270: Au+Au 54.4 GeV collisions as well -> Au+Au collisions
> > > at
> > > > > > √
> > > > > > > sNN =   54.4 GeV
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L271:  new constraints to the ->  further constraints on
> > > the
> > > > > > > - L271-272: reference to this sentence would be useful
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L272-273: "We observe clear ...as the decrease of
> > > collisions
> > > > > > > energies." - this sentence might be too strong, comments as
> > > above
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > to the AN.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - L274-275: this sentence is quite generic and doesn't seem
> > > to
> > > > > > bring
> > > > > > > much. Either add some argument why, mention what is still
> > > expected
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > come and at what energies, etc., or remove this sentence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 9:33 AM Yi Yang <yiyang AT ncku.edu.tw>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Dear Yuanjing,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have some comments and suggestions for your consideration
> > > on
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > nice paper draft.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - General: all symbols, like e^{pho}, N^{NPE}, N_{Inc} ...,
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > use romain font for the superscripts. For example, e^{\rm
> > > pho},
> > > > > > > > N^{\rm NPE}
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Title: Heavy Flavor --> Heavy-Flavor
> > > > > > > > - Abstract: it would be nice to mention STAR here.
> > > > > > > > Heavy flavor electron --> Heavy-flavor electrons
> > > > > > > > exhibit --> exhibits
> > > > > > > > with the expectation that their parent charm
> > > > > > > > hadron v_2 follows number-...  --> with the expectation of
> > > their
> > > > > > > > parent charm hadron v_2 following number-...
> > > > > > > > The measured e^HF v_2 in Au+Au sqrt(s_NN) = 27 GeV
> > > > > > > > -->  The measured e^HF v_2 at sqrt(s_NN) = 27 GeV
> > > > > > > > -L2: Heavy ion --> Heavy-ion
> > > > > > > > -L3: to describe strong interaction in laboratory, --> to
> > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > strong interaction, in laboratory,
> > > > > > > > -L7: , namely the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) had been --> ,
> > > namely
> > > > > > > > the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP), had been
> > > > > > > > -L7: heavy ion collisions --> heavy-ion collisions
> > > > > > > > -L8: heavy ion experiments --> heavy-ion experiments
> > > > > > > > -L10: Heavy flavor quarks --> Heavy-flavor quarks
> > > > > > > > -L11: large masses --> heavy masses
> > > > > > > > -L12: Heavy flavor quarks --> Heavy-flavor
> > > > > > > > -L13: heavy ion collisions --> heavy-ion collisions
> > > > > > > > -L14: larger than --> longer than
> > > > > > > > -L16: Heavy quark --> Heavy-flavor quarks
> > > > > > > > -L18: heavy quark --> Heavy-flavor quark
> > > > > > > > -L20: There are quite significant experimental achievements
> > > -->
> > > > > > > > There are quite a lot of experimental achievements  (?)
> > > > > > > > -L22: at top RHIC energy --> at the top RHIC energy
> > > > > > > > -L23: at high transverse momentum p_T --> at high p_T
> > > > > > > > -L26: heavy flavor decays --> heavy-flavor hadron decays
> > > > > > > > -L33: heavy flavor program --> heavy-flavor program
> > > > > > > > -L35: (mu_B) etc. --> (mu_B), etc.
> > > > > > > > -L35: heavy quark --> Heavy-flavor quark
> > > > > > > > -L38: Previously RHIC experiments --> Previous RHIC
> > > experiments
> > > > > > > > -L54: 35cm --> 35 cm
> > > > > > > > -L54: Totally, 5.7 x 10^8 ... --> Total 5.7 x 10^8 ...
> > > > > > > > -L55: The data sample statistics used here is more than -->
> > > The
> > > > > > > > statistics of these data sample is more than
> > > > > > > > -L58: Add reference of the previous STAR measurement
> > > > > > > > -L65: to suppress photon decayed electrons converted in high
> > > > > > > > detector material density area --> to suppress the electrons
> > > from
> > > > > > > > the photon conversion at high detector material density
> > > area.
> > > > > > (?)
> > > > > > > > -L68: path-length --> path length
> > > > > > > > -L68: time-of-flight --> time of flight
> > > > > > > > -L71: pass 1/beta cuts are --> passed 1/beta cuts is
> > > > > > > > -L75: PID cuts --< particle identification (PID)
> > > requirements
> > > > > > > > -L75: called --> categorized (?)
> > > > > > > > -L77: proton and so called merged pions --> proton, and
> > > ``merged
> > > > > > > > pions''
> > > > > > > > -L78: finite resolution --> finite spatial resolution
> > > > > > > > -Figure 1: (Plot(a) depicts the dE/dx ... pass TOF PID -->
> > > (a)
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > dE/dx   ... passed TOF PID
> > > > > > > > The purity of ... PID cuts is shown in plot (b)
> > > > > > > > --> (b) The purity of .... PID cuts as a function of p_T
> > > > > > > > -L83: pass 1/beta cuts --> passed 1/beta cuts
> > > > > > > > -L88: , kaon and proton dE/dx bands crossover --> the dE/dx
> > > band
> > > > > > > > for kaon and proton crossover
> > > > > > > > -L90: into systematic uncertainty --> into the systematic
> > > > > > > > uncertainty
> > > > > > > > -L91: It would be good to elaborate more on "the selection
> > > of
> > > > > > pion
> > > > > > > > samples".
> > > > > > > > -L95: Please explain why the systematic uncertainty is
> > > > > > > > out-of-control in these regions.
> > > > > > > > -L96: heavy flavor electrons --> heavy-flavor electrons
> > > (e^{\rm
> > > > > > > > HF})
> > > > > > > > -L99: N^{NPE} = p x N^{Inc} + N^{pho}  --> N^{NPE} = p x
> > > N^{Inc}
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > N^{pho}
> > > > > > > > -L104: A tagged electrons --> A tagged electron
> > > > > > > > -L105: as photonic electron candidate --> as the photonic
> > > > > > electron
> > > > > > > > candidate
> > > > > > > > -L105: di-electron passes --> dielectron pair passed
> > > > > > > > -L112: pass reconstruction -->passed reconstruction
> > > > > > > > -L113: \epsilon^{reco} is the e^{pho} reconstruction
> > > efficiency
> > > > > > > > defined as the estimated e^{reco} yield over N^{\pho}.
> > > > > > > > \epsilon^{reco} is determined by ...   -->  \epsilon^{reco}
> > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > e^{pho} reconstruction efficiency and is determined by ...
> > > > > > > > ("defined as the estimated e^{reco} yield over N^{\pho}"
> > > > > > > > reads a bit strange to me.)
> > > > > > > > -L120: shape of --> shapes of
> > > > > > > > -L122: Fig. 2 shows --> Figure 2 (a) - (c) show
> > > > > > > > -L124: pair-DCA and decay-length distribution --> pair-DCA,
> > > and
> > > > > > > > decay-length distributions
> > > > > > > > -L125: electron 0.4 < p_T < 2.5 GeV/c --> electron with 0.4
> > > < p_T
> > > > > > > > < 2.5 GeV/c
> > > > > > > > -L128:, respectively. The simulation... --> , respectively,
> > > and
> > > > > > > > they can be well described by the simulation.
> > > > > > > > -L128: Fig 3 (a) depict --> Figure 3 (a) depicts
> > > > > > > > -L130: in total photonic electrons --> to the total photonic
> > > > > > > > electrons
> > > > > > > > -L132: in the TPC inner field cage (TPC-IFC) --> in the
> > > TPC-IFC
> > > > > > > > -L133: dominated --> dominant
> > > > > > > > -L133: The estimated e^{pho} reconstruction efficiency are
> > > -->
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > estimated reconstruction efficiency for e^{pho} is
> > > > > > > > -L134: Reconstruction efficiency for --> Reconstruction
> > > > > > > > efficiencies from
> > > > > > > > -L136: 54.4 and 200  --> 54.4, and 200
> > > > > > > > -L142: add a reference for the v2 definition
> > > > > > > > -L147: azimuth angle --> azimuthal angle
> > > > > > > > -L147: Please describe how to evaluate the event plane
> > > resolution
> > > > > > > > or give a reference.
> > > > > > > > -L151: Due to lack of --> Due to the lack of
> > > > > > > > -Figure 3: are consisted with --> are consisted of
> > > > > > > > solid points in panel (a) --> solid points in
> > > > > > > > panel (b)
> > > > > > > > from different sources. --> from different
> > > > > > > > sources: Green is pi^0/eta --> e (green), gamma --> e from
> > > > > > TPC-IFC
> > > > > > > > (magenta), and gamma --> e from other (red).
> > > > > > > > -Figure 4: 54.4 (blue) and 27 (green) --> 54.4 (blue), and
> > > 27
> > > > > > > > (green)
> > > > > > > > -Figure 5: The blue data points --> The black data points
> > > > > > > > -L157: the blue points --> the black points
> > > > > > > > -L158: the pink band --> the red band
> > > > > > > > -L166: that satisfy --> and satisfy
> > > > > > > > -L166: add a reference for PYTHIA
> > > > > > > > -L167: B=0.5 T --> B = 0.5 T
> > > > > > > > -L169: The input heavy flavor electron --> The input e^{\rm
> > > HF}
> > > > > > > > -L170: add a reference for FONLL
> > > > > > > > -L171: please define N_coll
> > > > > > > > -L173: in inclusive electron --in the inclusive electron
> > > sample
> > > > > > > > -L176: from from PYTHIA --> from PYTHIA
> > > > > > > > -L178: sum for --> sum over
> > > > > > > > -L179: an average --> the average
> > > > > > > > -L183: upper-limit --> upper limit
> > > > > > > > -L185: v_2 of heavy flavor electrons (e^HF) --> v_2 of
> > > e^{\rm HF}
> > > > > > > > -L187: and 200 GeV from previous publication --> and the
> > > previous
> > > > > > > > 200 GeV publication
> > > > > > > > -L187: The blue hatched --> The gray hatched
> > > > > > > > -L190: at similar collision energies [14, 23] --> at similar
> > > > > > > > collision energies, 200 and 62.4 GeV [14, 23]
> > > > > > > > -L191: much improved --> better
> > > > > > > > -L192: are sizable --> is sizable
> > > > > > > > -L193: at 1.2 < p_T < 2 GeV/c --> within 1.2 < p_T < 2 GeV/c
> > > > > > > > -L198: although --> even though
> > > > > > > > -L199: to sqrt{s_NN} = 200 GeV  --> to 200 GeV
> > > > > > > > -L204: although --> however
> > > > > > > > -L206: experiment results --> experimental results
> > > > > > > > -L208: PHSD --> PHSD (parton-hadron string dynamics)
> > > > > > > > -L211: that is covered --> where is covered
> > > > > > > > -L218: In the PHSD (parton-hadron string dynamics) model
> > > --> In
> > > > > > > > the PHSD model
> > > > > > > > -Figure 6: Heavy flavor electron --> Heavy-flavor electron
> > > > > > > > to previous data --> to the previous measurement
> > > > > > > > -Figure 7: compare with TAMU, and PHSD calculations -->
> > > compared
> > > > > > > > to the TAMU and PHSD calculations
> > > > > > > > -L222: PHSD model --> The PHSD model
> > > > > > > > -L235: The PYTHIA decayer generator --> The PYTHIA generator
> > > > > > > > -L237: follow the (m_T - m_0)/n_q scaling  --> follow the
> > > > > > > > number-of-constituent-quark  (NCQ) scaling, (m_T - m_0)/n_q,
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > m_T is ..., m_0 is... , and n_q is ...  (or give a
> > > reference), to
> > > > > > > > those of light hadrons ...
> > > > > > > > -L243: to those of light hadrons in Au+Au 54.4 GeV
> > > collisions. It
> > > > > > > > suggests that the charm quark ... -->  to those of light
> > > hadrons
> > > > > > > > and the charm quark
> > > > > > > > -L246: D^0 and e^HF --> D^0, and e^HF
> > > > > > > > -L248: phi and D^0 --> phi, and D^0
> > > > > > > > -L252: D^0 and e^HF --> D^0, and e^HF
> > > > > > > > -Figure 8: D^0 and heavy flavor electron e^HF --> D^0, and
> > > e^HF
> > > > > > > > are statistical and systematic errors combined
> > > > > > > > --> are combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
> > > > > > > > -L264: under predict --> underestimate
> > > > > > > > -L267: number-of-constituent-quark scaling --> NCQ scaling
> > > > > > > > -L274: interesting --> important (?)
> > > > > > > > -L275: and LHC. --> and the LHC.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Reference:
> > > > > > > > - all et al. should be {\it et al.}
> > > > > > > > - all (STAR) or (PHENIX) should be (STAR Collaboration) or
> > > > > > > > (PHENIX Collaboration)
> > > > > > > > - all issue numbers should be in bold, for example  Phys.
> > > Rev. C
> > > > > > > > 71 (2005) --> Phys. Rev. C {\bf 71) (2005)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -L379: de/dx calibration of the star tpc --> dE/dx
> > > calibration of
> > > > > > > > the STAR TPC
> > > > > > > > -L386: A. Adare, S. Afanasiev ... --> A. Adare et al.
> > > (PHENIX
> > > > > > > > Collaboration)
> > > > > > > > -L392: author = ???  Move authors to the beginning
> > > > > > > > -L400: A. Adare, S. Afanasiev ... --> A. Adare et al.
> > > (PHENIX
> > > > > > > > Collaboration)
> > > > > > > > -L427: A. Adare, S. Afanasiev ... --> A. Adare et al.
> > > (PHENIX
> > > > > > > > Collaboration)
> > > > > > > > -L439: S(NN)**(1/2)  looks strange ,  200-GeV --> 200 GeV
> > > > > > > > -L442: gev au-au collisions --> GeV Au-Au collisions
> > > > > > > > -L463: 083c01 ???
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 [2] [2] [1]
> > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:19 AM Yuanjing Ji
> > > > > > <jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear convenors and all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here is a gentle reminder. The NPE v2 at 54.4 and 27 GeV
> > > paper
> > > > > > > > > draft has
> > > > > > > > > been ready for PWG review for about two weeks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The website is located at:
> > > > > > > > > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/jiyj/NPEweb
> > > > > > > > > The links to the paper draft, analysis note, past
> > > presentations
> > > > > > > > > are all
> > > > > > > > > included on the website.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Direct link to the paper draft can be found at:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HFE_v2_at_27_and_54_4_Au_Au_Collisions_v1.pdf
> > > > > > > > > Direct link to the analysis note can be found at:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_27_54_note_v1.pdf
> > > > > > > > > Your comments and suggestions are highly welcome.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Yuanjing for PAs
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2021-05-28 11:20, Yuanjing Ji via Star-hf-l wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please find the first paper draft for Heavy flavor
> > > electron v2
> > > > > > > > > at 27
> > > > > > > > > > and 54 GeV at:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HFE_v2_at_27_and_54_4_Au_Au_Collisions_v1.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > The analysis note:
> https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_27_54_note_v1.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > The website:
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/heavy/jiyj/NPEweb
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Comments and suggestions are highly welcome.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > > > > Yuanjing
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Star-hf-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > Star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hf-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Links:
> > > > > > > ------
> > > > > > > [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!R8oGSQDkKyRP8Nr3lKLpwz-g4GQ3pLDDq4jojdWDyyU5Od3KAgiWnTvqPDwWtXyhfd7UCw$
> > > > > > > [2]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!R8oGSQDkKyRP8Nr3lKLpwz-g4GQ3pLDDq4jojdWDyyU5Od3KAgiWnTvqPDwWtXwmrY0RGw$
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Sooraj Radhakrishnan
> > > > >
> > > > > Research Scientist,
> > > > > Department of Physics
> > > > >
> > > > > Kent State University
> > > > > Kent, OH 44243
> > > > >
> > > > > Physicist Postdoctoral AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> > > > > Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> > > > > MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> > > > > Berkeley, CA 94720
> > > > > Ph: 510-495-2473 [3]
> > > > >
> > > > > Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Links:
> > > > > ------
> > > > > [1]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!SHoPUkAroUXpplM9UoZS7T-vBuDFWwcVfvEj6qYQuQDFVyJa_6vJIFsNaZdWueqQc0VW2w$
> > > > > [2]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!SHoPUkAroUXpplM9UoZS7T-vBuDFWwcVfvEj6qYQuQDFVyJa_6vJIFsNaZdWueowX1H0RA$
> > > > > [3] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Star-hf-l mailing list
> > > > Star-hf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> > > > https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/star-hf-l
>
> --
>
> Sooraj Radhakrishnan
>
> Research Scientist,
> Department of Physics
>
> Kent State University
>  Kent, OH 44243
>
> Physicist Postdoctoral AffiliateNuclear Science Division
> Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road
> Berkeley, CA 94720
> Ph: 510-495-2473 [3]
>
> Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135595__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Dy85I7zYJiBApJwougq4Yms7x7UxbPWgOqlUuqYCul3Ty7Igsc4_MBnmOH2JAKBS4Jz3oQkphHR1_u80qXHbuXh9DS-ogBc17g$
> [2] 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!Dy85I7zYJiBApJwougq4Yms7x7UxbPWgOqlUuqYCul3Ty7Igsc4_MBnmOH2JAKBS4Jz3oQkphHR1_u80qXHbuXh9DS9DilU-Ig$
> [3] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473