Hi Eun-Joo et al., I've read the paper and I think it looks great. However I have a few comments: The text: page 1, line 3: It looks a bit funny that you write "transverse momentum" and "collision centrality" and not "rapidity" but simply "y". You could change the "...y=0..." to "...around midrapidity (y=0 and y~1)...". page 1, line 9: "...within one unit...". It's a specific unit, around mid-rapidity. I guess people can figure that out from the context, but still I think it sounds a bit funny. page 2, line 13 from the bottom: "...-2<eta<2 from the collision", skip "from the collision" or specify that it's the range covered from the nominal interaction point. page 2, line 12 from the bottom: I don't like the "0%" (there are no 0% central collisions), you can say: "...where the lower centrality correspond to the more central event". page 2, line 9 from the bottom: I'm not sure I understand the sentences about the uncertainty on the centrality. Centrality is defined from the measured mult distribution so how can it have uncertainties? The uncertainty can only come from the uncertainty in the estimation of the number of events we miss (the 4%). Or did I misunderstand something? How did you get the 1.7% and the 9.4%? page 4, general comment: First you say that the spectra are corrected for efficiency and background and weak decay. Then you talk about the simple fits. Then about errors and then about corrections for multiple scattering and weak decay and finally about acceptance corrections. I would first describe _all_ the corrections, then the _all_ the errors (systematic) and then the fits. Maybe the simple fits could be skipped - they are only used to extract the mean pt, which the blast wave fits also could do. page 4, line 1: skip "Reconstructed", the word doesn't tell anything (as far as I can see). page 4, line 7: What does the sentence "A more complex..." tell us? Only that the analysis is model dependent, which should be clear to everyone. In my opinion it sounds as an excuse, which is not good. I would just tell the the blast wave model is used to extract T and beta. The figures: figure 1: I would skip the fits. Is it possible to make the open symbols more visible? figure 2. Why not make fits for both y=0 and y~1? General comments: - I think I would skip the simple fits. - There's no interpretation of the K/pi and p/pi ratios. What does these measurements tell us? I think that if we don't interpret the ratios, we shouldn't show them. - Is the weak centrality dependence of dN/dy per participant consistent with our mult measurement? I would also like some words on the physics interpretation. - I think you should replace Npart with <Npart> (the mean number of participant) throughout the letter. Also, the "<...>" should be written $\langle ... \rangle$. Cheers, Claus On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Eun-Joo Kim wrote: > Dear collaborators, > > Hi, you can find one more draft for Phycis Letters B, on > Centrality Dependent Particle Production at y=0 and y~1, here : > > http://pii3.brahms.bnl.gov/~jhlee/brahms/centrality_paper/ > > Or you can get it from CVS (papers/mrs_centrality_from_run02) > > The analusis was done by JH and Eun-Joo, has been reviewed by > the committee(JHL, IGB, EJK). > > Please read and make comments to 3/31 (Wednesday). > > Thanks, > > Eun-Joo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Brahms-l mailing list > Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov > http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-l > _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Wed Mar 31 07:57:06 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 07:57:18 EST