STAR HardProbes PWG

[Yi Yang <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>]

Dear Yuan,

Thanks a lot for the nice results. I read through your analysis and paper draft, and I am happy to let it move forward for GPC formation. 

The analysis note is clear to me, however, I have some comments and suggestions on the paper draft for your consideration. 

 - General: "isobar" is a jargon in STAR, I would suggest avoiding using it too much. 

 - Abstract: 

      - suggestion D0 --> suggestion on D0 

      - Comparisons with the models are also reported --> It would be good  to mention the model(s) here

 -  Introduction 

      - pp --> $pp$

      - m_c,b >> lambda_QCD --> ">>" should be $\gg$

 - Data set and experimental apparatus 

       - in isobar analysis are Time Projection Chamber --> in this analysis are ... 

       - a transverse momentum lower limit of pT > 0.2 GeV/c --> a transverse momentum (pT) lower limit of 0.2 GeV/c

       - (Vr) and (Vz) --> (v_r) and (v_z) 

  - Data analysis

       - The transverse momentum is required to be >= 0.6 GeV/c --> The pT is required to be larger than 0.6 GeV/c

       - (page 3) f_k^min and f_k^max are defined in Eq.5, Eq.6 respectively -->  f_k^min and f_k^max are defined in Eq.5 and Eq.6, respectively

       - kaon and pion --> K and $\pi$   (many places, just need to be consistent with other places) 

       - (page 4) Add reference(s) for cocktail simulation and mixed-event method (or mentioned it has been used in many other papers) 

       - (page 4) The combination of the two functions is used --> Does the "two functions" here mean Gaussian and quadratic polynomial? It is not clear since you mentioned the redundant background is removed in the previous sentence 

       - Figure 3: The legend of $\mu$, $\sigma$, and S should change to "mass", "width", and "Nsig".

       - (page 6): D0 transverse momentum --> D0 pT

       *** I would define RAA, RCP before 3.3 Systematics since you mention RAA and RCP in the beginning of this section and it is a bit strange not defined it before*** 

       -  cross-section --> cross section

       - a pretty weak --> a weak     (pretty is not that scientific...) 

 - Results and discussion 

      - (page 7)  heavy ion collisions --> heavy-ion collisions  (many places) 

      - Figure 6: why don't you put the ratio plot in the bottom like Figure 5? 

      - Figure 7: This plot is very busy, it is a bit hard to catch the relation between data points and centrality. 

      - Figure 8:  why don't you put the ratio plot in the bottom like Figure 5? 

      - Figure 9: It is hard to see your result, probably change it to a different color? 

     

Cheers,

Yi

      

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:05 AM <suyuann AT mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:

Hi Yi,

  Thanks for your reply and PAs are waiting for your comments.

Cheers,

Yuan

-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Yi Yang" <yiyang0429 AT gmail.com>
发送时间:2024-03-27 06:08:25 (星期三)
收件人: "STAR HardProbes PWG" <star-hp-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
抄送: suyuann AT mail.ustc.edu.cn
主题: Re: [Star-hp-l] Replies to PWGC preview D0_RAA_isobar

Hi Yuan,

Sorry for the late reply. We will provide our comments on your analysis note and paper draft asap.

Cheers,

Yi