Differenze

Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.

--- cms:hin-14-008 [18/09/2015 09:04]
maselli creata
+++ cms:hin-14-008 [27/09/2015 20:36]
migliore
@@ Linea 1: / Linea 1: @@
 http://cms.cern.ch/cds/HIN-14-008
+** Ernesto **
+Congratulations for this nice work. Overall the paper is well written.
+We have suggestions (Type A) which can make the understanding of the topic easier,
+especially for people who are not directly involved in the HI analyses.
+We have also two comments about the physics content (Type B).
+Type B
+In the Introduction there is a lot of emphasis on the potential of this analysis
+on discriminating about hydrodynamic vs CGC models. On the other hand along the
+paper the experimental results are compared only against the predictions of
+the hydrodynamic model. As you mention the current accuracy on the measurement does not allow
+to draw any conclusions. Anyway it would be nice to see on Figure 7 also the curve predicted by
+CGC. If the CGC prediction is what is called "inclusive pT" I would write it explicitly
+I would swap the columns of Figure 3 in order to have the delta_eta=0 regions
+of Pb-side and p-side histograms close to each other.
+Is there any physical reason why the p-side yield and the Pb-side yield should be different at eta=0?
+If not, this means that the first term of Eq.4 should be fitted simultaneously between
+the p-side and the Pb-side. Have you tried to do that, thus reducing the number of fitted parameters and
+most likely giving a chi2/ndof closer to 1? Can you do this and include it in the study of the systematic
+uncertainties?
+Type A
+General comments about style:
+- Notation: is the label "trigger" (introduced at L42) a literature standard for denoting the primary track?
+I have found it confusing, e.g. it seems to define a track on which the experiment is triggered.
+Can it be changed into "primary" or "seed" or "tag"?
+- Figures: would it be possible to have the axis representing "delta_phi"
+in units of "pi" instead of integers?
+Perhaps it is obvious for HI experts, but it not harm to mention that short/long range
+usually referes to the eta-separation (I have understood correctly).
+L19-33: I suggest to remove this paragraph. Although it contains interesting references to
+previous literature, it definitively breaks the flow of the introduction, e.g. description
+of the models (L7-18) followed by the description of the predictions relevant to this measurement
+(L34-41).
+L40: "decorreclation" -> "decorrelation"
+L42: is the label "trigger" a literature standard for denoting the primary track?
+I have found it a bit confusing, e.g. denoting a track on which the experiment is triggered.
+Can it be changed into "primary" or "seed" or "tag"?
+L52: remove "dN/dDeltaEta ~ dN/deta". At this point I have found it confusing. What it is done in the analysis is
+explained in detail later.
+L53-54: consider to move it at the beginning of the paragraph (L42).
+L70: add a one-sentence guideline about the meaning of v2 and v3, e.g. "A non-vanishing v2 indicates ..."
+Eq.4 "E" -> in the text (L129) is "epsilon".
+More in general, I would not call a correction factor "epsilon_trk" as this name rather denotes an effciency.
+Which is the typical size of the correction factor?
+L132: I would not make "Quantifying jet contributions" a separate subsection
+L133: "particle eta windows." -> "particle eta windows in low and high multiplicity events."
+L136: for my education: in which of the four panel you observe the "extensive feature on the away side"?
+Figure 2: caption "Distributions" -> "Example of distributions"
+The upper limit of the y-axis ("1") of the lower plots is partly hidden.
+L153:  "1/N_trig d2N/d(delta_eta)d(delta_phi)" is the differential yield and not the near-side averaged.
+Either remove it or use the formula with the integral sign.
+L165: "which stand" -> "which stands"
+Eq.8: use for the multiplication the same symbol of Eq.5 (either "\times" or "\cdot").
+Eq.9: does factorization mean that you assume no correlation? If so Eq.9 does not add anything and you
+should limit to write in the above sentence "v_n(eta_assoc)/v_n(0)".
+L205-207: Postpone the definition of "eta_lab" to Sec.5, e.g. around L238.
+L225-226: is there any inconsistency between the value in the text (3.6%, 5.7%, 14%) and those in Table 2 (3.9%, 5.8%, 15%)?
+Same comment for the values quoted in the captions of Figures 4-6.
+L228 "From the two-particle correlation ... va Eq.7.": already explained. Remove it?
+L229, L231, L246, L247 "blue points", "red points", "closed points", "open points":
+I would not repeat in the text what is already written in the caption of the figure.
+Figure 6: in the caption: "Bands show" -> "Band shows"
+L277: remove "perhaps"
+L278: "vs" -> "as a function of"
+L280: remove "about" since the uncertainty is written explicitly
+"eta~1.5" -> "eta=1.5" what is approximate is the size of the decrease (20%) not the value of eta where you evaluate it
+Figure 7: caption: either write "average pT" or "<pT>"