From: Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje (gardhoje@nbi.dk)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 16:02:23 EST
Dear Colleagues,
The ratios PRL is back from refereeing. Below you can find the report. The
manuscript has been resubmitted today. You can also find the cover letter as
an attachment.
cheers
JJ
____________________________________________________________
Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Sc.
Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tlf: (+45) 35 32 53 09, secr. (+45) 35 32 52 09, Fax: (+45) 35 32 50 16.
UNESCO Natl. Comm., secr. (+45) 33 92 52 16.
Email: gardhoje@nbi.dk.
____________________________________________________________
LU8319
Rapidity dependence of charged antihadron to hadron ratios in
Au+Au collisions at $sqrt S sub NN = 200$ GeV
by I.G. Bearden, D. Beavis, C. Besliu, Y. Blyakhman, et al.
Dr. J.J. Gaardhoje
Niels Bohr Institute
Blegdamsvej 17
DK-2100 Copenhagen, DENMARK
Dear Dr. Gaardhoje,
The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees. Acceptance
of your paper for publication is likely, but we first ask you to
consider carefully the enclosed comments.
Please accompany your resubmittal by a summary of the changes made,
and a brief response to any recommendations and criticisms.
Yours sincerely,
Jerome Malenfant
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: prl@aps.org
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://prl.aps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Report of Referee A -- LU8319/Bearden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The additions to the manuscript, in particular the physics
discussion at the end, have given the impressive experimental
results a more solid foundation. As I said in my first report,
these results place incredibly tight constraints on present and
future attempts to model collision dynamics, more than ratios at
midrapidity can provide alone. I recommend its publication in
Physical Review Letters, after a couple clarifications in the text
(particularly the physics discussion) are considered and/or added.
(1) In the paragraph beginning "The ratios shown in Fig. 2" it
should be noted that the protons in the quoted PHENIX results were
feeddown-corrected to remove Lambda contamination, while the STAR
protons weren't feeddown-corrected. Also, Xi feeddown to Lambda
has not been removed by either experiment (and STAR estimates it
to be 27% of the Lambda yields). In the end, you're right that it
doesn't affect your results. Perhaps it is better to say
explicitly something like, "because anti-Lambda/Lambda is very
near the anti-Proton/proton ratio measured at RHIC energies,
feeddown contamination mostly cancels in the anti-Proton/Proton
ratio. We estimate this..."
(2) Paragraph beginning "The measured set of particle ratios...":
the second sentence is too simplified. First, some models
(including the model used by Becattini et al. in Ref. [21])
include additional parameters such as the strange quark fugacity
(Eq. 2.3 in [21]). Also in the same sentence, "zero total
strangeness" is not the only requirement of statistical models.
You state this correctly when referring to Ref. [11] later in the
paragraph by listing all the conservation laws, but here it's
misleading. Perhaps something like, "In these studies, ratios of
yields can be fitted by a limited set of thermal parameters and
the enforcement of conservation laws." Also, the first mention of
Fig. 4 (third sentence) should be moved after the discussion of
y=0 ratios, Ref. [11]'s predictions, and the deconfinement
transition. Maybe this could be moved to the beginning of the next
paragraph... it fits in better with that paragraph's discussion.
Finally, the pre-summary paragraph & Fig. 4 are a bit dangerous -
the assumption of constant temperature for the model calculations
in Fig. 4 seems to contradict the lower values for temperature in
AGS & low-energy SPS studies. What does it really mean that
Becattini et al's 170 MeV curve would pass through the E866 point
even though the curve's temperature is 50 MeV higher than AGS's
freeze-out temperature? This is probably why the figure from their
publication only went down to anti-p/p = 0.4. There's an inherent
temperature dependence in the relationship in Fig. 4, which you
referred to in the previous paragraph.
There are a couple options to make the figure & discussion less
problematic: (a) remove the AGS/SPS data from the plot, which gives a
consistent view of your rapidity dependence in the context of the
stat.model; or (b) remove the model calculation from the plot and just
show the 0.24 power-law curve, which places the emphasis on the nice
AGS-SPS-RHIC trend, but of course this means removing the mu_B axis on
the top of the figure that gives quantitative meaning to your rapidity
dependence.
I'll leave this decision up to the authors, but I feel one of these
options would remove the contradiction between the model & the
lower-energy data. The authors can also choose to leave the figure
unchanged, since they do explicitly point out the use of a constant
temperature and are aware of the pitfalls, but I warn that this will
distract a bit from the otherwise impressive content of the paper. Maybe
an additional sentence or two can clarify this ambiguity in the
pre-summary paragraph (this doesn't relate to the narrow rapidity
intervals already discussed there).
It's been a great experience to serve as Referee for this nice paper, I
look forward to seeing the final version.
****************************************************************************
****
----- Original Message -----
From: "PRL Electronic submissions" <prltex@ridge.aps.org>
To: <gardhoje@nbi.dk>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:14 PM
Subject: LU8319
> LU8319 12Jul02 L2-23A P 10 F 4 T 0 A 58 EX JM
OTA
> Rapidity dependence of charged antihadron to hadron ratios in Au+Au
collisions
> Bearden,I.G./Beavis,D./Besliu,C./Blyakhman,Y./Budick,B./B$roman o csl_gg
>
>
>
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%REVTEX 4 RELEASE%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> Thank you for your submission. Please note
> that REVTeX 4 (the APS macro package) has
> now been officially released along with new
> guidelines for submission to APS journals.
> To download REVTeX 4 and the new guidelines
> please see http://publish.aps.org/revtex4/
> or send e-mail to revtex@aps.org.
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
>
> We have successfully generated output of the above manuscript that
you
> sent for resubmission. The manuscript has been forwarded for further
> processing.
>
> To avoid confusion and delay, DO NOT send further copies of the text
> of the manuscript by postal or overnight mail. If you have already
> done so, contact us by e-mail immediately and indicate whether such copies
> should be processed instead of the file we received by e-mail.
>
>
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>
>
>
> ******************************************************************
> ******************************************************************
> If you have not already done so, for your next article, consider
using
> the web-based form for submission or resubmission to the Physical
> Review and Physical Review Letters journals through the URL:
>
> http://publish.aps.org/ESUB/
>
> This form contains instructions for submitting e-prints from the
> Los Alamos server or for direct upload of files, and a standardized
> ``cover letter'' for regular e-mail or hard-copy submissions and
> resubmissions.
> *******************************************************************
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Physical Review Letters
>
> ===================================================================
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> American Physical Society Internet: PRLTEX@APS.ORG
> 1 Research Road Telephone: (631) 591-4000
> Box 1000 FAX: (631) 591-4141
> Ridge, NY 11961-2701
> ===================================================================
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 16:11:27 EST