Subject: Pb+Pb paper status (comment from the refree of PRC) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:01:33 -0700 From: Masashi Kaneta Organization: LBNL To: NA44 Dear NA44 colleagues; I had received many comments from the referee for the Pb+Pb single paper. I am working for them and would like to ask your help. The referee mainly pointed out the following. (1) Centrality definition by T0 (2) Figure 7-10 plotted as a function of arbitrary unit (p+Be,..Pb+Pb). Use a quantitative parameter. (3) Strangeness saturation factor (4) English Please read the referee's comments and my answers/question for them in detail. I put it after my signature. The current version of manuscript is on the web. Please go to http://www4.rcf.bnl.gov/~kaneta/na44/pbpbsingle/ and download new version as ps file or LaTeX file. If the page is not available, please let me know. I will send it to you directory. Thanks in advance. -- Best regards, Masashi Kaneta +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ph.D., Masashi KANETA Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory | | Postdoctoral Fellow Physicist MS 70-319, 1 Cyclotron Road | | http://www.rhic.bnl.gov/~kaneta/ Berkeley, CA 94720 | | MKaneta@lbl.gov +1-510-486-7129(Office) / 4818(FAX) | +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > Date: 16 April 2002 Tue Apr 16 09:41:53 2002 > > To: mkaneta@lbl.gov > Subject: Your_manuscript CP8029 Kaneta > > Re: CP8029 > Particle production in Pb+Pb collisions at relativistic energies > by I.G. Bearden, H. Boggild, J. Boissevain, et al. > > Dr. M. Kaneta > Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory > MS70-319 > 1 Cyclotron Rd. > Berkeley, CA 94720 > > Dear Dr. Kaneta: > > The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees. > Comments from the report are enclosed. > > These comments suggest that considerable revision of your paper may be > in order. If you resubmit your manuscript, please include a summary of > the changes made, and a brief response to all recommendations or > criticisms. We regret the delay in obtaining this report. > > Yours sincerely, > > Debbie Brodbar > Senior Assistant to the Editor > Physical Review C > Email: prc@aps.org > Fax: 631-591-4141 > http://prc.aps.org/ > > P.S. Please enlist the aid of a colleague more fluent in English > to assist you in the preparation of your revised manuscript. > > > Figure problems with manuscript: > > In reviewing the figures of your paper, we note that the following changes > would be needed in order for your figures to conform to the style of the > Physical Review. Minor changes may be made by cutting and pasting. Please > check all figures for the following problems and make appropriate changes > in the text of the paper itself wherever needed for consistency. > > Fig.(s) 7-10 > * The lettering and/or numbering size should be increased. It is done. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Report of the Referee -- CP8029/Bearden > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This manuscript details the measurement of particle spectra from Pb+Pb > collisions by the NA44 collaboration. The experiment is well known for > its superb particle identification and momentum resolution (the latter > is not so relevant here). The experimental apparatus is clearly > described. However, the presentation of the results need substantial > work before the manuscript is up to the caliber of the better PRC > articles. Some specifics, roughly in priority order: > > 1) The authors compare their data to NA49, then argue that most of > the differences are probably due to the differences in centrality > selection. However, their description of their own centrality > selection via the T0 counter is very confusing. > > * Naively, I would have thought their selection of "the top 3.7% > ... of 'these' interactions" would have meant the 3.7% most > central. While it is clear that this is _not_ the case, it is not > clear to me what _is_ the case, i.e., how do I go from this 3.7% > to the stated = 5 fm, and what is the rms on this. The T0 counter is loose for multiplicity because it only covers 20% of azimuthal angle. The RMS is about 2 fm by my estimation. I added the following sentence after "The events selected ... of these interactions." We note that the T0 covers only 20\% of the azimuthal angle, therefore event centrality selected by T0 has loose sensitivity to multiplicity, that is, to impact parameter. > * Both the Figure 4 caption and the text refer to a scatter plot > that is not present. It was mistake of English to specify histogram plotted with error bar, that looks like cross (+). So I describe it as 'scatter plot' but it is not correct. Now two histograms are specified by (1) and (2) in the Figure 4. > * The caption in Figure 4 is not clear, and the third sentence is > not understandable at all. Related previous issue, the caption is rewrote as the following. The histogram (1) which has a peak around 40 [ch] is from valid beam run. The histogram (2) shows a pulse height distribution from an online trigger required a pulse height in the counter. The shaded region is used for the analysis. The descriptions of Figure 4 in the text are also rewrote. > * The discussion in the text of $\lambda$ and the relevance of > p+Pb collisions is not at all clear. I added the detail description to explain how we obtain $\lamda$ as the following instead of "The total Pb interaction probability is 3.4\% for 2 mm Pb target." The value of $\lambda$ is obtained by scaling the interaction probability of $p$+Pb collisions to one of Pb+Pb collision by a geometry factor of $(208^{\frac{1}{3}}+208^{\frac{1}{3}})$/$(1^{\frac{1}{3}}+208^{\frac{1}{3}})$=2.93. The nuclear interaction length of Pb is 194 g/cm$^2$ and density of Pb is 11.35 g/cm$^3$. Therefore, the interaction probability of $p$+Pb of 2 mm Pb target is $0.2/(194/11.35)=0.0117$. The total Pb interaction probability is 3.4\%$(=\lambda\times0.0117)$ for 2 mm Pb target. > Remedy: Completely rewrite this section so someone not from NA44 > can determine the event selection criteria. By the above rewriting of text and plots, I think now it is much better. > 2) Figures 7 through 10 are really tables, not graphs, in that the > horizontal axis is a completely arbitrary label. Much of the > accompanying discussion in the text refers to the rate of increase > of slope parameters, etc. with the "system size", but this > arbitrary plotting method renders those statements meaningless. > The authors should pick some parameter such as N_part, N_coll, > A*B, A+B, remake these plots, then write appropriate text. (Note > that Figure 11 does just this; I would guess that there is a > different author for that section.) The reason why I used arbitrary unit in the Figure 7 through 10 was just to keep same figures with NA44 paper for p+A and S+A collisions (PRC57(1998) 837 and PRC59(1999) 328). Now mid-rapidity dN/dy of charged particle (pi+ + pi- + K+ + K- + p + pbar) is used for horizontal axis. After I had referee's comments, I asked Michael to have for p+A and S+A collisions and have some number (Thanks, Michael and John). However, I noticed that the dependence is not only also root(s_NN). Also it is better to use a measured value like Fig.11. Then now I am using dN_ch/dy for horizontal axes in Fig.7-10. > 3) I would guess that there is an unresolved systematic error in > the pion mT spectrum on the LHS of Figure 6, in that the change in > slope at about 0.25 GeV/c is where one switches from the 4 GeV/c > to the 8 GeV/c setting. The analysis method is the same with p+A and S+A collisions published as PRC57(1998) 837 and PRC59(1999) 328. If there is unresolved systematic error in the pion mT spectrum, we could see same effect in those distribution. Therefore, we don't conclude it is any systematic error in the analysis. > 4) The small systematic errors on the pion spectra are probably > smaller than the oscillations apparent in RHS of Figure 6; some > discussion of this is needed, as is listing Chi-squared and the > numbers of degrees of freedom for all fits (to alleviate my > concern that the Chi-squared >> NDF and thus results artificially > small errors). The values of $\chi^2$/dof are added in the TABLE II. As referee expected the $\chi^2$/dof >> 1 indeed. > 5) The discussion of the deviations of the strangeness saturation > factor $\gamma_S$5 from unity immediately follows a discussion in > which conclusions are drawn for the case in which this factor must > be unity. It is still not clear whether strangeness saturation factor should be unity. However, some paper support $\gamma_s$ is less than 1. I added the following sentence after "The power factor of ... in the particle." It is not clear whether $\gamma_s$ should be unity or not. On the other hand, calculations in Refs.~\cite{PR_C64_2001_024901,EPJ_C5_1998_143,JPG_25_1999_295} support $gammas_s$$<$1. Therefore, we adopt $\gamma_s$ as a free parameter. > 6) The final paragraph before the CONCLUSION section is very vague > and should either be completely rewritten to make a definite > statement or eliminated. Does someone give me a suggestion? The paragraph was necessary to support the chemical freeze-out mode will work in limited rapidity range and small number of particle species. But if referee think this paragraph is not necessary, should be deleted? > 7) The last sentence on page 13 which translates a larger > systematic _error_ into a a larger _enhancement_ is completely > unclear. The sentence is changed from However, the systematic error on the slope parameter for pions in the low $p_T$ region is larger than in $p$+A and S+A, reflecting larger enhancement of pions at low $p_T$. to However, the pion inverse slopes vary about 60 MeV in the low $p_T$ region in Pb+Pb, refracting the larger enhancement at low $p_T$. > 8) Figure 5 caption refers to squares, I see circles. Same is true > in text. The word is corrected as "circle" > 9) The grammar in the text is very rough in many places. Definite > articles are often missing. Many sentences are fractured; here are > a few: "44 mrad setting match", "is reported with consistent > values", "Evaluating those reports equally", "fitting the > procedure". A close reading by one of the many authors with a good > command of English grammar is needed. > > The following forms are included: > > ef2 > > FORM: EF2------------------------------------------------------ > > EF2 > 6/93 > > Language Requirements > > Manuscripts submitted for publication in Physical Review should be > clearly written in good scientific English, in a style consistent with > that of the journal (see Editorial Policies and Procedures at the front > of the first issue of each volume of the journal). With this > requirement in mind, authors should carefully review and proofread > their papers before submittal. In particular, authors whose native > language is not English are urged to seek help from a native English > speaker. > > Minor mistakes in grammar or orthography can often be corrected by the > copy and technical editors of the journal. It is not possible, > however, for the editorial office to undertake extensive corrections of > manuscripts, due to time constraints as well as the risk that the > authors' meaning might be distorted. Those manuscripts requiring > extensive corrections are, therefore, returned to the authors. > > We request that you revise your manuscript with the aid of a colleague > whose native language is English. It has been consulted by Dave for original version which submitted to PRC. On the other hand, I have modified many part for the referee's comment. I need a help of native speaker.