STAR HardProbes PWG

[Barbara Trzeciak <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com>]

Hi Yuanjing,

I'm also fine with the updated version.

We can then request a GPC for this paper and inform you in a separate email what information we need from your side. 

Cheers,

Barbara

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 5:47 PM Sooraj Radhakrishnan <skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov> wrote:

Hi Yuanjing,

   Thanks for the responses and the updated drafts. They address the comments I raised and I dont have further comments. 

best,

Sooraj

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 3:34 AM Yuanjing Ji <jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:

Dear convenors,

Thank you for the comments. We update our paper draft and AN notes
accordlingly.

One small updates on the final results are I forgot to propagate
uncertainties after adding correction on VM/Kaon->e in last version so I
fix it in the new version. Also we add another systematic uncertainty
from VM/Kaon->e estimation according to Barbara's comments in AN note
(see Q1). So the uncertianties are a bit larger in the new version and
mainly affect 27 GeV results. Our conclusions remain unchanged. I have
clarified in the AN note and updated the plots/data accordingly.

Please find the updated version below:
Response to Barbara:
AN note:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_AN_3nd.pdf
paper:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Barbara_paper_3nd.pdf

Response to Sooraj:
paper:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Sooraj_2nd_paper.pdf

Updated paper/note:
AN
note:https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_5427_note_Oct11.pdf
Paper:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/NPE_v2_5427_Oct11_1col.pdf
(1 column for better comparion to last version)
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/HFe_v2_5427_Oct11_2col.pdf
(2 column for better view)
Paper difference compared to last version:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/diff-Oct11.pdf

Best
Yuanjing

On 2022-10-05 11:53, Sooraj Radhakrishnan wrote:
> Hi Yuanjing,
>    Thanks for the updated versions of the note and paper. The
> discussion on results in the paper draft reads much more concrete now.
> I dont have further comments on the analysis note and sign off. I am
> happy with the responses to the paper draft as well. I sign off on the
> paper draft too with a few further comments
>
> Abstract L11: Given the error bars, this is somewhat an unjustified
> conclusion. You could make it a general statement that a smaller eHF
> v2 would imply not fully thermalized charm quarks in the QGP
> Abstract L13: shows an indication of quark mass hierarchy
> L199: What do you use the heavy flavor spectra discussed here for?
> L241: Is this a straightforward conclusion? Could a reference be added
> if available? The final v2 is a combined results of different initial
> conditions + temperature evolution + temperature dependent diffusion.
> Models now would have to satisfy the boundary conditions of initial
> density and final v2 and have appropriate temperature dependence of
> diffusion that satisfies both. I would guess a more detailed
> theoretical study is needed to evaluate the impact
> L245: Similar comment as abstract here
>
> With these addressed, I sign off
>
> thanks
> Sooraj
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:06 PM Barbara Trzeciak
> <barbara.trzeciak AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yuanjing,
>>
>> Thank you for the updates and answers.
>> The new paper draft looks good to me. I have only minor remaining
>> comments, with them addressed I sign off.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Barbara
>>
>> Paper draft:
>>
>> On the webpage you have the target journal as: PRC letters/PLB. Have
>> you decided which one ? PLB has the following requirements:The total
>> length of the paper should preferably not exceed six journal pages,
>> equivalent to ten typewritten pages with double spacing, excluding
>> the list of authors, abstract, references, figure captions and three
>> figures. In the case that more figures are required, the text should
>> be shortened accordingly.
>>
>> Abstract:
>> - with the magnitude comparable to that at √sNN =200 GeV -
>> shouldn't it be removed ? You write again about the comparable v2 in
>> the next sentence.
>>
>> - so that they may also reach -> and may reach
>>
>> - L21: move [11, 12, 13, 14] references after (R_AA) measurements
>> - L52: The events are further required offline to have vertex ....
>> and with centrality of 0–60%. -> Further offline requirements are:
>> vertex .... and centrality 0-60%.
>> - L58: and 39 GeV respectively. -> and 39 GeV, respectively.
>> - L60: and name and reference for TOF.
>> - L68: from the photon converted -> from photons converted
>> - L69:  density area. ->  density.
>> - L116: 0.1 GeV/c -> 0.1 GeV/c^2
>> - L116: that successfully tagged -> that are successfully tagged
>> - Figure 3 caption: between data and Monte Carlo -> for data and
>> Monte Carlo
>> - Figure 3 caption and L138: "Peaks around 5 and 60 cm" - there is
>> no 60 cm on the plot
>> - L129: aren't the central reco. efficiency values estimated
>> currently from the average of the different set-ups and then sys.
>> unc. in the max deviation ? If so, please update the paper text
>> accordingly. The default procedure is also not so clear from the AN
>> - sec. 5 described the PE reco. eff, but the default case is only
>> mentioned in 5.4 (Uncertainty from pT spectra shape) while in 5.1
>> and 5.2 the described procedure is still the old one (62GeV spectra
>> for 54.4 GeV analysis and 39 GeV spectra for 27 GeV).
>> - L142: the electrons contribution -> the electron contribution
>> - L158: to second order event -> to the second order event
>> - L193: [49] paper is for 62.4 GeV
>> - L196: 62.4 and 27 GeV -> 62.4 and 39 GeV (?)
>> - L198-202: it's not clear from the paper text why you need the
>> heavy flavor decayed electron spectra
>> - L214:  denominator -> numerator
>> - L217: nominator -> denominator
>> - L227: remove "at 54.4 GeV", now you have an estimate for both
>> energies.
>> - L228: result -> results
>> - L245: I would also say here that it's consistent with zero.
>> - L250-251: TAMU model is calculated at Au+Au √sNN 62 GeV -> TAMU
>> calculations are for Au+Au at √sNN = 62 GeV
>> - L251: TAMU and PHSD model -> TAMU and PHSD models
>> - L251: the heavy -> that heavy
>> - L255:  the microscope heavy quark interactions ->  the microscopic
>> elastic heavy quark interactions (and remove 'ellastically' from the
>> next line)
>> - L258: coefficients -> coefficient
>> - L302: at 11 GeV -> at √sNN = 11 GeV (same in 303)
>> - L304-306:..., suggesting a change in the properties of the QCD
>> media created in these collisions with decreasing energy - I still
>> don't fully get to what medium properties you refer to - can you be
>> more specific on the relation between the observed potential
>> hierarchy and medium properties ?
>> - L320: remove "as well"
>> - 321: to the charm quark -> on the charm quark
>>
>> AN:
>>
>> - Sec. 9.1, 9.2: RAA for HFE is based on a model. As we discussed
>> during the coll. meeting, the model has a bump that is not so small
>> - it describes the preliminary data, but within large uncertainties.
>> How sensitive are you here to the assumption on the RAA ? Have you
>> checked how the final result differs if you assume RAA = 1 ? (To
>> have an idea of a potential sys. unc. from this source).
>>
>> Responses, AN:
>>
>> _- 8, - 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 3 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. -_
>> _The reason that I use a wide bin instead of using the same binning
>> as the final results is to avoid introducing statistical
>> fluctuations into systematic uncertainties. I use linear
>> interpolations between these bins to get the systematics at a fine
>> bin. _
>>
>> That's fine, but please make it clear in the AN.
>>
>> _- For the lowest pT bin of nHitsFit, I use a wide bin when
>> estimating the uncertainties._
>>
>> Why do you need such a wide bin for nHitsFit at low pT ?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 9:15 AM Yuanjing Ji <jiyj AT rcf.rhic.bnl.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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] [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] [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
>
> --
>
> 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!DRFvzo1GrVrxPHz3iDNXNBBnaJHDFC04SYjGrhkwIncVYvW-4v1rJ5DgylRxbbRhG4QlP0UTnqcjBAGfyr1ufI9Tyn3QUklMGQ$
> [2]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://phys.ncku.edu.tw/*yiyang__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!DRFvzo1GrVrxPHz3iDNXNBBnaJHDFC04SYjGrhkwIncVYvW-4v1rJ5DgylRxbbRhG4QlP0UTnqcjBAGfyr1ufI9Tyn0gGQR4rA$
> [3] tel:%28510%29%20495-2473

--

Sooraj Radhakrishnan

Research Scientist,

Department of Physics

Kent State University

Kent, OH 44243

Physicist Postdoctoral Affiliate

Nuclear Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
MS70R0319, One Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

Ph: 510-495-2473

Email: skradhakrishnan AT lbl.gov