[Fwd: Djamels Draft]
From: Kris Hagel (hagel@comp.tamu.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 18:21:51 EDT
Next message: Truls Martin Larsen: "Fingures from latest paper"
attached mail follows:
Dear Djamel,
well done on the draft. There is lots of nice data. A question I have
to the collaboration is should we submit our QM02 proceedings to the
preprint server? Certainly if you plan to include tables there is less reason
not too. However I think we should have a BRHAMS policy about this.
One thing that strikes me is the change in Pt scales from y=0 to y=3.
(1) the slopes become softer,
(2) the crossing point at which the protons exceed the pions drops from
pT = 2.0GeV to 1.2GeV.
(3) the maximium of R_AA also moves down from pT = 2.0GeV to 1.2GeV.
Is there some consistent story lurking here? Is it possible to simply "rescale"
the y=3 spectra in some simple way and end up with our y=0 spectra?
Hans Boggild did this for data at taken at different energies. Perhaps
we could do it for different rapidities.
I don't like the discussion of the difference in rapidity widths of the
k- and k+ yields. I found it very confusing. Also while associated
production is the dominant way to make k+ at the AGS it is not
obvious that is so hear. I think that we should discuss this in
the same spirit as our ratios paper, that is higher baryon density
tends to favour k+ over k- because of the excess of u quarks over
anti u.
Below are some comments on the figures. I will make comments on the
text directly in the latex file and send it later.
Bonne Weekend,
Michael
here are my comments. I have changed some text, look for >MJM.
Try to maximize the space in the figures given to data so that the radio of
data Int/all ink > 0.5. Also the data should fill the field of the plots. Legends
and supporting text should be "out of the way".
For example in Figure 1 you should delete "pion acceptance" and "measurements"
This would allow you to set the y scale to stop at about 2.2.
For y axis put the labels hoziontally if possible. Eg For Fig 1 say
Pt
(GeV/c)
Use a nicer font for all your lables.
In Figure 2 you can increase the impact by making it a 2x2 plot. You can just fill
one column using (minibox I think) and use the other half for text.
The y scales should be the same for y=0 and y=3. This will allow the reader to
immediately sense the change in magnitude and slopes. Currently this info is
lost. Boxes in the middle of the each side could contain "+" and "-". There is
no need to have 4 legend boxes.
I am not sure that is is best to use different symbols for + and -. What you
want to show is the at y=0 the p and pbar spectra cross the pions at around
Pt = 2 but at y=3 the protons do but the antiprotons don't. I just see a
sbloge of open symbols near Pt=2. Currently the plot is very confusing
because you change the symbols for k and p from positive to negative!
I would recommend solid symbols for pions and kaons and a "solid white"
symbol for protons. (You may need to overlay an open white triangle over a
solid white triangle to get this effect).
The y scale label is hard to read. Why note just write
d3N
E ---- and put the units below
d^3P
(Note this is the "offical" expression for the invariant cross section found in the
particle data book. Its not hard to show that it equals what you have.)
The left half of Figure 4 contains no information! Also the logarithmic scale
masks the increase of the proton yield. The advantage of a log scale is that
it lets you compare the shapes. However my impression from Fig 3 is that the proton
yield is almost independent of rapidity.
In Figures 3 and 4 the legends take up too much space. As a result the
x scales have to go out too far. You can
minimize the space required by makeing two columns of labels with "+" and "-"
at the head of each column.
It would be polite to reference the data you compare to in Fig 4.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 18:23:55 EDT