comments on the high pt paper

From: Fouad Rami (Fouad.Rami@IReS.in2p3.fr)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 11:13:08 EDT

  • Next message: Ian Bearden: "Re: dnp meeting abstract submission for multiplicity"
     Hi all,
    
     The present draft version (June 29) looks very good.
    
     I have only 2 comments concerning Fig.3:
    
     1) Last paragraph, page 4 -> "The figure shows that, within errors, the
      degree of high-pt suppression (at pt > 2GeV/c) observed at eta=2 is
      similar or larger than at eta=0".
      I don't like "similar" in this sentence.
      Fig.3 shows clearly stronger suppression at eta=2 in the high pt region
      (pt > 2GeV/c); it is not "similar". Look at the figure, all 3 points
      above 2GeV/c are significantly lower, within error bars, than the value
      at low pt. At pt~3GeV/c, there is almost a factor of 2.
      I don't know what this could mean in terms of physics (rather
      unexpected!), but this is what the data in Fig.3 are telling us and
      those data are free from systematic uncertainties!
      I think that this effect should be stated clearly in the paper and not
      just as "similar or larger". It is larger ...
    
     2) The second comment is rather a question to Claus and the high-pt team.
      Can we say something on the y-dependence of the high pt suppression from
      the R_AA ratio (Fig.2), by comparing for example the right/left panels
      in the upper part (central events) of the figure ?
      Is it consistent with what we observe in Fig.3 ?
      If this is the case, then we should mention it in the manuscript.
      This would strengthen the message in the paper: same effect
      observed consistently from the analysis of 2 different observables
      (R_AA and R_cp).
      I know that because of the lack of p+p reference at eta=2, the R_AA
      ratio at eta=2 is somewhat model-dependent (it relies on Hijing) and it
      is therefore subjected to much larger systematic uncertainties etc.
      Nervertheless, if we show R_AA at both rapidities (eta=0 and 2), then
      it is legitimate to ask whether the ratio R_AA(eta=2)/R_AA(eta=0)
      is consistent with the trend observed in Fig.3 ?
    
      Best regards, Fouad
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Fouad RAMI                            e-mail: fouad.rami@ires.in2p3.fr
       IReS                                phone : 33.(0)3.88.10.62.00
     23,rue du Loess                             : 33.(0)3.88.10.64.55
      B.P.28-BAT.20                                (secretary's office)
     67037 Strasbourg Cedex 2              fax   : 33.(0)3.88.10.66.14
         France
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 11:14:25 EDT