John Sullivan wrote:
> 
> Hi Mashashi,
>    I read the new draft of this paper and here are my comments.
> I have no serious problems with the text as written.
> 
> I'll put the few items which are actually mistakes (all typos
> I believe) or which have at least some small amount of substance
> at the top, the other items follow.
> 
> The page numbers are from the draft in preprint style.
> 
> More significant things:
> ________________________
> 
> Page 6, near bottom: In the statement "For pions from the 8 GeV/c
> setting the contamination from electrons is negligible for pt>0.35 MeV/c."
> I'm sure you mean 0.35 GeV/c not MeV/c.

Done.


> Page 6: near bottom, I don't have any exact words to suggest, but
> the discussion of the use of the Cherenkov counters would be easier to
> follow if it said that C2 fires for electrons at 4 GeV and for electrons
> and most pions at 8 GeV, and C1 fires for pions and electroncs. Or else
> just list their thresholds (in GeV/c) for electrons, pions, kaons, protons.
> In particular, there is no motivation for the statement "For pions
> from the 8 GeV/c setting the contamination from electrons is negligible
> for pt>0.35 MeV/c." unless the reader understands that pions at this
> setting can fire the C2.

Done.


> Page 7, near bottom: the right-hand side of the big expression
> $(208^{\frac{1}{3}}+208^{\frac{1}{3}})$/$(1^{\frac{1}{3}}+208^{\frac{1}{3}})$=2.93.
> needs to be squared:
> $[(208^{\frac{1}{3}}+208^{\frac{1}{3}})$/$(1^{\frac{1}{3}}+208^{\frac{1}{3}})]^2$=2.93.

Done.


> Page 12, middle:
> "On the other hand, the slope in the region $m_T-$mass$<$0.6 GeV/$c^2$
> in Pb+Pb is similar to the slope in $p$+A and S+A collision
> systems.  However, the pion inverse slopes vary about 60 MeV in the
> low $p_T$ region in Pb+Pb, refracting the larger enhancement at low $p_T$."
> This is a bit confusing, the second sentence seems to contradict the
> first. I think the large error bars make either statement a little
> unconvincing. I would say somthing like this:
> "While the uncertainties on the slope parameters for pions make
> a definitive statement difficult, the pion slope parameters
> in the region $m_T-$mass$<$0.6 GeV/$c^2$ in Pb+Pb are similar to,
> or less than, the slope in $p$+A and S+A collision systems, Perhaps,
> the lower values in the low $p_T$ region for Pb+Pb reflect
> a larger enhancement at low $p_T$."
> (Note that the original used "refracting" where "reflecting" was intended.)

Done.


> Page 12, next paragraph:
> "The kaon inverse slope parameters increase ..."
> I would say "The kaon, proton and anti-proton slope parameters
> increase ..."

Done.

> Trival stuff follows:
> _____________________
> 
> Page 2, near bottom: Germantown not Germantowon.

Done.


> Page 3, near bottom: "The multiplicity of the produced hadrons
> ranges from several hundred to a few thousand in relativistic
> heavy-ion collisions, ..."
> This needs to say something about the energy, e.g. "The
> multiplicity of the produced hadrons ranges from several
> hundred to a few thousand in relativistic heavy-ion
> collisions at ~160 GeV/nucleon, ..."

Done.
I used root(s_NN) for the energy.


> Page 4: first sentence in section II, add "distributions"
> not "distribution".

Done.


> Page 4: third sentence in section II, I would change
> "3.4\% interaction probability for Pb+Pb" to
> "3.4\% interaction probability for a lead beam"

Done.

> Page 4: two sentences later, I would clarify the point of
> the CX cut by changing: "CX selects single beam particles
> up to a rate of $2\times10^6$ ions/second ..." to
> CX selects single beam particles (rejecting events with
> multiple simultaneous beam particles) up to a rate of $2\times10^6$
> ions/second ..."

Done.


> Page 4: 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph of section II: after
> "quadrupole magnets" add "(Q1, Q2, and Q3)".

Done.


> Page 5: near top, I suggest changing:
> "The trigger requires a valid beam, a high multiplicity detected
> in T0 (central collision), at least one track in each hodoscope,
> and absence of a veto particle such as electron or pion for K/p
> runs ($e/\pi$ veto)."
> to
> "The trigger requires a valid beam, a high multiplicity detected
> in T0 (central collision), at least one track in each hodoscope,
> and the absence of an electron (all runs) or pion (for K and p runs)."

Done.


> Page 5, near bottom: change ("the" to "a") from:
> "fitting them with a straight line using the $\chi^2$-minimization method."
> to
> "fitting them with a straight line using a $\chi^2$-minimization method."

Done.


> Page 6: figure 3 caption: change
> "The regions (a) and (b) in right plot correspond to the left plots."
> to
> "The right-hand plots are plots of the time-of-flight vs. track momentum
> for events inside the boxes labeled (a) and (b) in the left-hand plot."

Done.


> Page 6(bottom)-page 7(top): I recommend changing:
> "H3 provides the primary TOF information because of the long path.
> In addition, the timing resolution of H3 is better than H2."
> to
> "Because it has a longer flight path in addition to its better
> timing resolution, H3 rather than H2 provides the primary TOF information."

Done.


> Page 7, middle, I recommend changing:
> "Events containing an electron fire C2, and are rejected by
> requiring a pulse height.  Regions (a) and (b) in the plots of TOF
> as a function of momentum (right-hand figures) show the same events
> indicated in the left-hand side plot.  Particles are selected via
> the bands shown by the curves in the figure."
> to
> "Events containing an electron fire C2 -- these events are rejected.
> The events sielected by the boxes labeled (b) and (b) on the left-hand side
> of the figure are shown on plots of TOF as a function of momentum
> on the right-hand side of the figure. Particle between the curves
> are selected."

Done.


> Page 7, near bottom: change "the interaction probability of $p$+Pb
> collisions to one of Pb+Pb collision ..." to  "the interaction probability
> for $p$+Pb collisions (the nuclear interaction length) to the
> interaction probability for Pb+Pb collisions ..."

Done.


> Page 7, last line: in sentence:
> "The total Pb interaction probability is 3.4\%$(=\lambda\times0.0117)$
> for 2 mm Pb target."
> "lambda" is never defined. I suggest replacing it with "2.93" from
> the equation above, but you could define lambda as equal to the
> big expression above instead.

Done.


> Page 8: last sentence of section II: I recommnd changing:
> "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."
> to
> "We note that the T0 covers only 20\% of the azimuthal angle,
> therefore the event centrality selected by T0 has a loose sensitivity to
> multiplicity, that is, to impact parameter."

Done.


> Page 8, middle: change:
> "The momentum spectrum and rapidity distribution for each particle
> species in Pb+Pb was taken from RQMD (v2.3),..."
> to
> "The momentum spectrum and rapidity distribution for each particle
> species in Pb+Pb collisions was taken from RQMD (v2.3),..."

Done.


> Page 9, about 1/3 of the way down: change:
> "The veto factor (i.e., the correction for this loss) for each particle an
> and momentum setting is estimated by comparing the number of
> the particle with no Cherenkov veto to the number of particle
> with Cherenkov veto, using real data without Cherenkov veto trigger."
> to
> "The veto factor (i.e., the correction for this loss) for each particle an
> and momentum setting is estimated by comparing the number of
> the particles with no Cherenkov veto to the number of particles
> with the Cherenkov veto, using real data without the Cherenkov veto trigger."

Done.


> Page 9: last sentence of section III, change:
> "dN/dy is the sum of the normalized cross section in each measured
> $m_T$ bin plus extraporation of the fitted exponential distribution
> beyond the measurement region."
> to
> "dN/dy is the sum of the normalized cross section in each measured
> $m_T$ bin plus extraporation using the fitted exponential distribution
> beyond the measurement region."

Done.


> Page 9:, first sentence of section IV, I would add the equation
> to this sentence, i.e. change from
> "The inverse slope parameters are extracted by fitting the experimental
> distribution with a single $m_T$ exponential function."
> to
> "The inverse slope parameters are extracted by fitting the experimental
> distribution with a single $m_T$ exponential function ($exp(-m_T/T)$)."

Done.


> Page 9, next sentence: "ranges" not "range"

Done.

> Page 9, near bottom: change:
> "the stability of T0 pulse height to select event fraction ($2\%$), "
> to:
> "the stability of the T0 pulse height used to select the event
> fraction ($2\%$), "

Done.


> Page 10: near middle: change
> "Since the lifetime of $\Sigma^0$ is short, its yield was included
> into the $\Lambda$ yield."
> to
> "Since the $\Sigma^0$ lifetime short, its yield was included
> in the $\Lambda$ yield."

Done.


> Page 10, near bottom: change:
> "The suffixes indicated origin of protons: ..."
> to:
> "The suffixes indicate the origin of the protons: ..."

Done.


> Page 11, near top: change:
> "The errors due to feed-down correction ..."
> to
> "The uncertainties due to feed-down correction ..."

Done.


> Page 11, middle: change:
> "This analysis used a different definition of event fraction,"
> to:
> "This analysis used a different definition of the event fraction,"

Done.


> Page 12: Figure 6 caption, last sentence: change:
> "Note that the proton and anti-proton are scaled by a factor
> 0.1 in the vertical direction."
> to:
> "Note that the proton and anti-proton are scaled by a factor
> of 0.1 in the vertical direction."

Done.


> Page 12: also in figure 6 caption: It should say that the two
> sets of plots come from the 4 and 8 GeV settings.

Done.


> Page 17, middle: I recommend changing:
> "The factor $\gamma_s$ ($0{\le}\gamma_s{\le}1$) is introduced to take
> account of possible incomplete chemical equilibration for strange
> particles~\cite{PL_B262_1991_333}."
> to
> "The factor $\gamma_s$ ($0{\le}\gamma_s{\le}1$) is introduced to
> allow of the possibility
> of possible incomplete chemical equilibration for strange
> particles~\cite{PL_B262_1991_333}."

Done.


> Page 17, next sentence: This is a matter of taste, but I found the
> phrase " The power factor of $\gamma_s$" confusing when I read it,
> I would either just change it to "${\langle}s+\bar{s}{\rangle}_{i}$"
> or add "(${\langle}s+\bar{s}{\rangle}_{i}$)" after the existing
> phrase.

Done.


> Page 18, middle: change:
> "The values of $\mu_q$ increases ..."
> to
> "The values of $\mu_q$ increase ..."

Done.


> Page 19, middle: change
> "re-scatterings among constitutes"
> to
> "re-scatterings among constituents"

Done.


> That's it,
> John