I still believe that figure 5 has a the weakness of having a calculated quantity in both axes. One can do similar work as the one done in our draft with the x axis displaying fractions of total cross section. But the community is already using the figure that we plan to show and it may be convenient to follow the trend. We provide the data in the table and one can display in whatever way one likes. What is missing in the discussion about fig 5 in the paper is a conclusion; if these fits were inspired by the Karzeev and Levin paper we could say that the ratio of beta(200)/beta(130) extracted from our data is 1.24 and not 1.33 that they estimate for the "soft plus hard" model. (unfortunately the errors are such that the difference doesn't look very significant) About the same figure. The predictions from Karzeev and Levin (their figure 5, what a coincidence!) show curves with positive non zero slopes. The curves we display in our figure have a region where the slope is zero for the eta = 0 and 3.0. We must be using and upgraded calculation. Have we checked with them about this difference? The caption of figure 1 says that the statistical error are showed for all points where they are smaller that the symbol, shouldn't it be the opposite you just plot the symbol it the statistical errors are smaller than it. The systematic error are shown as "isolated error bars". I only see error bars on the BBC data , but the text mention 8% for SiMa and 10% for BBC, we should put some representative error bars at mid-rapidity. If dn/dy is flat near y=0 the dip at eta=0 is produced by the jacobien of the transformation y -> eta. Our "dip" seems to wander by almost 1/2 a unit of eta. Has that been included in our point to point errors? Why are the errors absent from figure 3? According to the caption they are all smaller than the symbol. As I remember AMPT and HIJING were only 1 sigma away from the data for the 130 GeV data. I like figure 4 its four panels are still labeled a b c and d and the text says they are extracted from samples with different centrality cuts but it doesn't give the values. I would like to change the vertical scale (from 1 to 1.8) to see the change from peripheral to central. The main message from this figure is that things changed smoothly from 130 to 200. Ramiro --------End of Unsent Message
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 14:24:49 EST