## Introduction

These are the comments received before FR on July 31st, 2020. The answers to each comments are shown bellow. The color code is the following:

• To be discussed
• Comment
• Implemented

## Comments after paper-v24 was released

Comments are based on v23 and v24. Diff file can be found by HIN-19-009-diff-v23-v25.

### Type B

##### Summary:
 Comments L302: "Compared at similar ..." -> "At similar ..". Implemented.

 Comments L305-306: "at pT ~2-5 GeV" -> "for pT ~2-5 GeV". Implemented.

## Comments after paper-v23 was released

Comments are based on paper-prev1-v22, paper-prev2-v22 and paper-v22. HIN-19-009-prev1-v23 is prereleased version of paper-v23. HIN-19-009-diff-v22-prev1-v23 is the diff between v22 and pre-v23.

### Type B

##### Introduction:

 Comments L 15-17: "respectively" refers to v_2 and v_3, but it is in a difference sentence than the one where v_2 and v_3 are defined. I would suggest to make it one sentence, to read: "The second and third harmonic coefficient .... v_2 (elliptic) and v_3 (triangular) flow, which most directly reflects .... Initial collision geometry and its fluctuations, respectively." Implemented.

 Comments L 24-25: rewrite "... signals of electrons from heavy-flavor decay and ..." as " ... signals of electrons from the decay of heavy-flavor hadrons and ..." Implemented.

 Comments L 35: add "the" to read " ... in spite of the mass differences... " Implemented.

 Comments L 48: "... wide 2-8 GeV p_T range..." reads a bit strange; do we really need "wide" here? Implemented.

##### Summary

 Comments L 298: Ntrkoffline is not defined! Perhaps rewrite as "In pp collisions with multiplicities of Ntrkoffline >= 100, ..."? Implemented.

 Comments L 299: "... D^0 mesons are measured for over the... " --> remove "for" Implemented.

 Comments L 300: "... with the indications of positive v_2 ..." --> remove "the" Implemented.

 Comments L 302 and 303 "similar" appears twice; could we replace "... are found to be similar in magnitude" by "... are found to be equivalent in magnitude"? If it sounds strange, just leave as it is. Replaced "similar" with "comparable".

Following comments are based on paper draft prev1-v22. Paper prev2-v22 on this page is the updated one in answer. Diff between prev1-v22 and prev2-v22 can be found on HIN-19-009-diff-prev1-v22-prev2-v22. Diff between v21 and prev2-v22 can be found on HIN-19-009-diff-v21-prev2-v22.

### Type B

#### From Wei Li

 Comments l19: references that should be cited are: 36, 37, https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10820 (pythia), https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.05139 (kinetic theory), 47 (AMPT escape). I don't think 45, 46 and 48 are relevant. Implemented.

 Comments l33: "from heavy-flavor (charm and bottom) decay and open charm D0 mesons" electrons decay from HF hadrons, not quarks. Implemented.

 Comments l46-48: "This behavior cannot be explained by the final-state effects of a QGP medium, as the contribution from recombinations to J/Psi production is not expected to be significant in small systems [61]. Therefore, this finding may suggest the existence of initial-state correlation effects [62]" Implemented.

Following comments are based on paper draft v21. Paper prev1-v22 on this page is the updated one in answer. Diff between v21 and prev1-v22 can be found on HIN-19-009-diff-v21-prev1-v22.

### Type B

#### Title

 Comments at the LHC energies -> at LHC energies Implemented.

#### Abstract

 Comments L3, ", using data samples collected" -> "The data samples are collected" Implemented.

 Comments L5-7, "v2 signals ... in the high multiplicity pp collisions."-> "In high multiplicity pp collisions, v2 signals ..." Implemented.

 Comments L10-L12, "The observed magnitudes ... 2-5 GeV " ->"For pT in the range of 2–5 GeV, the results suggest that v2 for nonprompt D0 mesons are smaller than those for prompt D0 mesons." Implemented.

 Comments L12-L13 "in the smaller pp systems" -> "in pp collisions" Implemented.

 Comments L14: "a mass dependence of v2 between" -> "a mass dependence in v2 between" Implemented.

 Comments L15: "in the pPb systems, providing" -> "in the pPb system. These results provide" Implemented.

 Comments L16 "in these systems" -> "in small systems" Implemented.

#### Introduction

 Comments L3 "quark-gluon plasma" -> "quark gluon plasma" Implemented.

 Comments L11 "in e+e-(non-partonic) and ep collisions" -> "in e+e- and ep collisions" Implemented.

 Comments L16, remove "which have dominant contributions to the collectivity." Implemented.

 Comments L18, "in these small systems" -> "in the small systems" Implemented.

 Comments L19, "strong final-state interactions", give some references of different models See followup from Wei.

 Comments L22, remove "Particles of ..." Implemented.

 Comments L22, remove "because of their large masses" Implemented.

 Comments L26-31, remove "One of ... via prompt char mesons" Implemented.

 Comments L31-34, rephrase. Implemented. Now it reads "Strong elliptic flow signals of electrons from heavy quarks decay and of open heavy-flavor D0 mesons are observed in both gold-gold (AuAu) collisions at RHIC [47, 48] and lead-lead (PbPb) collisions at the LHC [49–51]. These findings suggest that charm quarks develop significant collective behavior via their strong interactions with the bulk of the QGP medium. See followup from Wei.

 Comments L37-38, "... the potential of providing key insights to disentangle ..." -> "... the potential to disentangle ..." Implemented.

 Comments L42, "Suprisingly, the observed v2 ..." -> "Suprisingly, in spite of mass differences, the observed v2 ..." Implemented.

 Comments L44-45, "... by the final-state effects of a QGP medium alone." -> "... by the final-state effects of a QGP medium as the significant contributions from recombinations alone." Implemented. See followup from Wei.

 Comments L46-49 "Further detailed investigations, including multiplicity dependence of charm quark collectivity in both pPb and pp systems and the details of collective behavior of beauty quarks, are important to address many open questions for understanding the origin of heavy-flavor quark collectivity in small systems." -> "Further detailed investigations are important to address many open questions for understanding the origin of heavy-flavor quark collectivity in small systems. These include multiplicity dependence of charm quark collectivity in both pPb and pp systems and the details of collective behavior of beauty quarks." Implemented.

 Comments L51-52, "(\sqrt{s})" -> "\sqrt{s}", "(\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}})" -> "\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}" Implemented.

 Comments L54, "a wide pt range from 2-8 GeV for ..." -> "the wide 2-8 GeV pt range for ..." Implemented.

 Comments L55, "... pp and pPb collision systems compared." -> "... pp and pPb collisions." Implemented.

#### Summary

 Comments L307, "for the first time over transverse momentum range of" -> "over the transverse momentum range of" Implemented.

 Comments L307-308, "... range of 2-8 GeV. The indications of positive v2 signals for prompt charm hadrons are reported over a pt range of 2-4 GeV" -> "... range of 2-8 GeV, with the indications of positive v2 signals over the pt range of 2-4 GeV" Implemented.

 Comments L309, "those for light-flavor" -> "those of light-flavor" Implemented.

 Comments L315, "in small-system collisions" -> "in small colliding systems" Implemented.

#### Main text

 Comments L207, "is obtained by Vnsub" -> "is obtained from V2sub" Implemented.

 Comments L288-289 They are underlined by Sandra, but without comments. I suppose they are good to be left there.

 Comments L300 They are underlined by Sandra, but without comments. I suppose they are good to be left there.

 Comments L4 of Caption for Figure 5. "The range is zoomed in along y-axis to give a better display and uncertainties are symmetric with respect to central values." -> "The y-axis is zoomed in to better display the data; the uncertainties are symmetric with respect to their central values." Implemented.

Following comments are based on paper draft v20. Paper v21 is the updated one in answer.

### Type B

#### Title

 Comments charm and beauty -> charm and beauty hadron, pp and Pb collisions -> pp and pPb collisions at the LHC energies Implemented.

#### Abstract

 Comments ... are found to be comparable to those for light-flavor hadron spieces over a transever momentum range of 2--4 GeV ... -> ... are found to be comparable to those for light-flavor hadron spieces over a transever momentum range of 2--6 GeV ... Implemented

 Comments In pp collisions, v2 signals .... in the high mulitplicity region. -> v2 signals ... in high multiplicity pp collisions. Implemented.

 Comments providing key insights to further understand the origin of ... -> proving insights into the origin of ... Implemented.

#### Figures

 Comments Make reader realize the figure 5 are new measurements. Implemented. Added a sentence, "v2sub values in pPb collisions with 185 ≤ Ntrkoffline < 250 are measured in different pT ranges from Ref 54 and are found to be consistent with Ref 54."

#### From Sevil Salur

 Comments Error bars in Fig. 5 are not fully displayed. Please explain. Implemented. Added two sentences in the caption, "The range is zoomed in along y-axis to give a better display and uncertainties are symmetric with respect to central values.".

#### From George Stephans

 Comments 202: Add a sentence saying that v_2^{sub} is obtained from V_{2Delta}^{sub} using Equation 3. Implemented

 Comments 283-284: Add a reference to the claim that a flavor hierarchy is expected if v2 is generated by final-state interactions. Implemented

 Comments 285: Start new paragraph and rephrase: On the other hand, correlations at the initial stage of the collision between partons originating from projectile protons and dense gluons in the lead nucleus are able to generate sizable elliptic flow in the CGC framework [44, 57, 73]. These CGC calculations of v2 signals for prompt J/psi; mesons, as well as prompt and nonprompt D0 mesons, are compared with data in Fig. 6. The qualitative agreement between data and theory suggest that initial-state effects may play an important role in the generation of collectivity for these particles in pPb collisions. The CGC framework also predicts a flavor hierarchy between prompt and nonprompt D0 for pT<~6.5 GeV, again consistent with the data within uncertainties. Implemented

### Type A

Following comments are based on paper draft v19. Paper v20 is the updated one in answer. Paper v21 is the updated one in followup answer.

### Type B

#### From Achim Geiser

 Comments change line 10 "there is no observation of long-range correlations in e+e- collisions" to "there is no observation of long-range correlations in e+e- and ep collisons", and add the corresponding reference arXiv:1912.07431, JHEP 04 (2020) 070. Furthermore, reference [36] is meanwhile published. Implemented

##### Abstract
 Comments There seems to be a controversy about quoting flavor hierarchy in the third line from bottom. In his CWR Comments, Greg Landsberg suggested that the significance of the result does not seem to allow for this indication, as written. He also suggests that it probably was suggestive of mass hierarchy, since you are indeed dealing with difference mass particles when comparing v_2 from prompt D0 and those nonprompt, from beauty mesons. Shouldn't "flavor hierarchy" be replaced by mass hierarchy or mass dependence in the abstract? And also perhaps softer a bit by replacing "... and a flavor hierarchy of v_2 between charm and beauty..." --> "... and suggest a mass dependence of v_2 between charm and beauty..." ( as is read in the summary). Implemented. The flavor hierarchy was intended to stress on difference between charm and beauty. We wanted to avoid confusing readers with mass order of flow for light flavor hadrons.

##### Main Text
 Comments L61: Please add the sentence:"The event samples were collected with a two-level trigger system~\cite{bib:CMStrigger}: at level-1 events are selected by custom hardware processors while the high-level trigger uses fast versions of the offline software." (Where {bib:CMStrigger} is CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST 12 (2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366.) This has been recently discuss among members of the Pub Comm, remembering that it would be fair to mention the L1 and HLT trigger systems and quote the reference, recognizing the important role of the triggers in data taking. Implemented

 Comments L76: "The D0 (and its charge conjugate)" --> "The D0 (and its charge conjugate, $\bar{D0}$)"; then add in L 77 (\bar{D0} --> K^{+} \pi^{-} Implemented

 Comments L249: "The results indicate strong collectivity..." --> "strong" seems a bit exaggerated, I suggest to remvove "strong"; I suggest to rewrite the sentence as: "The results suggest that collectivity is being developed..." Implemented

#### From George Stephans

##### General
 Comments The various descriptions of what you measure don't appear to mention that you also have data for prompt D0 mesons in pPb. We mentioned the prompt D0 measurements in pPb in summary and results sections. Maybe we need to include a sentence in abstract? Implemented. In v21, we made following changes: added a sentencee in abstract, "Compared at similar event multiplicities, the prompt D0 meson v2 values in pp and pPb collisions are similar in magnitude"; added a sentence in result section, "To further investigate possible system size dependence of collectivity for charm hadrons in small colliding systems, v2 for prompt D0 mesons in pPb and pp collisions are both measured in different multiplicity classes."; added a sentence in the caption of Fig. 5, "v2sub values in pPb collisions with 185 ≤ Ntrkoffline < 250 are measured in different pt ranges from Ref 54 and are found to be consistent with Ref 54."

##### Abstract
 Comments 5-7: Consider rearranging: In pp collisions, v2 signals for prompt charm hadrons are reported for the first time, and are found to be comparable to those for light-flavor hadron species over a transverse momentum range of 2–4 GeV. Implemented.

 Comments 7-9: Similar comment: The v2 values for open beauty hadrons are extracted for the first time via nonprompt D0 mesons in pPb collisions. The observed magnitudes are smaller than those for prompt D0 mesons with transverse momenta of 2–5 GeV. [I don't know why the first v2 was plural and the second was singular] Implemented.

 Comments 10: postive -> positive [I found other misspellings. The whole document should be checked carefully] Implemented.

##### Text

 Comments 5: "long range" needs a definition. Implemented. Now it reads "long-range (large pseudorapidity gap)"

 Comments 5-10: Sentence is too long. Break in two after Refs 31-34. Implemented. Now it reads "... such as pp pA, and lighter AA systems. This observation raised the question of ..."

 Comments 9: "tiny" and "significantly smaller size" seem redundant. I suggest: ... question of whether a fluid-like QGP medium with a size significantly smaller than in AA collisions is created in these other systems [35]. Implemented.

 Comments 16-20: Consider breaking in two. Implemented. Now it reads "The experimental measurements are consistent with ... Meanwhile, alternative scenarios based on ..."

 Comments 21: there -> their Implemented.

 Comments 21-22 ... are produced via hard scattering in the very early ... collision. Implemented.

 Comments 22: They are -> Therefore, these quarks are Implemented.

 Comments 26: via the -> via their Implemented. ".. via their strong interactions with the bulk of the QGP medium."

 Comments 28: Drop "and their ... medium." [it's redundant] Implemented.

 Comments 30: In small systems -> In small systems, Implemented.

 Comments 39-41: Rearrange: Further detailed investigations, including the multiplicity dependence in both pPb and pp systems, are important to address many open questions ... Implemented.

 Comments 41: What does "and its collective ... quarks." mean? Now it reads "Further detailed investigations, including multiplicity dependence of charm quark collectivity in both pPb and pp systems and the collective behavior of beauty quarks, are important to address many open questions in understanding the origin of heavy-flavor quark collectivity in small systems."

 Comments 43: letter -> Letter Implemented.

 Comments 45: sqrt{s_NN} needs to be defined. Implemented.

 Comments 45: using -> found using Not very clear to us. It will read "This letter presents the measurement of v2, found using long-range two-particle correlations."

 Comments 48: for -> for two transverse momentum ranges Implemented.

 Comments Figure captions: horizontal error bars -> horizontal bars Implemented.

 Comments 248: This is not -> This difference is not Implemented.

 Comments 260: at low -> in the low Implemented.

 Comments 264: Why do you define v_2^sub here after it has already been mentioned in the two previous paragraphs. Is this v_2^sub different from the preceding ones? If so, you need to explain that (and chose different symbols). If not, you should put the definition the first time v_2^sub appears in the Results section. Implemented. Remove the repeated definition.

 Comments 267: nonprompt -> the nonprompt, hint of positive -> hint of a positive Implemented.

 Comments Fig. 6 caption: The dashed line, dash-dotted line, and solid line -> The dashed, dash-dotted, and solid lines, show the theoretical calculation of prompt -> show theoretical calculations for prompt, mesons within ... framework, respectively [55, 70]. -> mesons, respectively, within ... framework [55, 70]. Implemented.

 Comments 275: This statement should have a reference. This statement, hierarchy between charm and beauty quarks, is concluded in this letter. Implemented.

 Comments 280: genearte -> generate Implemented.

 Comments 281: "previous work"? Be more specific! We are referring to the studies in the above two sentences. Now it reads "Results of these previous work"

 Comments 285-296: Several comments on sentences in the abstract apply here as well. Implemented.

 Comments 294: "smallest pp"? Isn't e+e- smaller? Removed "smallest" to avoid confusion. We intended to say hadronic systems.

#### From Raphael Granier de Cassagnac

##### General
 Comments - When comparing prompt and non prompt at a given pt, we don’t take caution of the fact that the underlying quarks have different pt (the b decay chain is longer and thus the non prompt have lost more energy…). This could just kill our argument of flavor hierarchy, couldn’t it ? We compared transverse momenta of nonprompt D mesons and their mother particles and the plot serves as supplemental materials. At low pT, nonprompt D0 mesons carry a fraction more than 50 percents of their mother particles. In paper v21, we made two statements about "flavor hierarchy". The first one is in l281-284, "At pT 2–5 GeV, the nonprompt D0 v2 is observed to be smaller than that for prompt D0 with 2.7 sigma. Nonprompt D0 mesons carry > 50% of B transverse momenta. These studies suggest a flavor hierarchy of the collectivity signal that tends to diminish for the heavier beauty hadrons."; the second one is in l293-295, "flavor hierarchy between prompt and nonprompt D0". We claimed the difference between hadrons, not quarks.

##### Abstract

 Comments - Shoudln’t we focus on +high-multiplicty+ pp collisions ? Implemented.

 Comments - In the same spirit, I would remove ‘’smallest’’, or at least change it to ‘’smaller’’ in comparison to pPb. Implemented.

##### Main Text:

 Comments 11. Ok, e+e- is smaller, but it is also non-qcd, non partonic… -> ‘’that is in non-partonic smaller collisions [46]'' Now it reads "no observation of long-range correlations in non-partonic ee collisions, which correspond to an even smaller system size compared to small hadronic collisions".

 Comments 16. I would add ''respectively’’, (v2 dominated initial geometry, v3 for fluctuations’') Implemented.

 Comments 24. I think we should add a PHENIX non-photonics electrons reference here too, because they are much older (even though the mesons are not fully reconstructed) I checked arXiv:nucl-ex/0403057 where non-photonics electrons shows v2 with large uncertainties at very low pT. I am not sure we can draw any conclusions from it. I check this one out: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.172301 Implemented. Now it read in paper v21, ""One of ways to study heavy-flavor quarks is measuring the heavy-flavor electrons (decay products of heavy-flavor quarks). Sizable elliptic flow signals for heavy-flavor electrons in gold-gold (AuAu) collisions at RHIC [47] show evidence that heavy-flavor quarks are strongly coupled with the QGP medium. Besides heavy-flavor electrons, the collectivity of charm quarks can also be studied via prompt charm mesons. A strong elliptic flow signal of open heavy-flavor D0 mesons is observed in both AuAu collisions at RHIC [48] and lead-lead (PbPb) collisions at the LHC [49–51], which suggests that charm quarks develop significant collective behavior via their strong interactions with the bulk of the QGP medium. Measurements of elliptic flow of hidden-charm J/ψ mesons provide further evidence for strong rescatterings of charm quarks [52, 53]."

 Comments 82. ''Criteria'' -> ''variables'’ (you don’t give the criteria, not even if the variables should be high or low, you just list the variables) Implemented.

 Comments Figure 2. The right fit looks particularly bad to me in the signal region, with quite some bins off the fit. Do we want to show that fit? Have you studied it? (Rebinning, this kind of stuff…) It is likely to be fluctuations from combinaotrial background. For DCA>XXXcm in pT 2-5 GeV, it is always there. But there is no similar fluctuations in other bins. We replaced the old figure with another approved supplemental figure, which corresponds to DCA 0.008-0.014cm

 Comments 227. You don’t explain what you do with the extracted non prompt fraction? Implemented. Now it reads "The $v_2$ for prompt \PDz is thus reestimated with the bounds and the extracted nonprompt D0 fractions and the change in $v_{2}^{S}$ is found to be smaller than 0.008."

 Comments 230. Also, don’t we need to consider that the template could be slightly wrong because of modifications of the prompt / non prompt, pt, rapidly, whatever, due to the medium ? Fraction evaluations are performed in narrow pt and ybins. Modifications are negligible.

 Comments 247-251. I don’t think we should mention a one sigma difference in 2.5 sentences… -> ‘’is found to be compatible with light-flavor hadron species, though slightly smaller by about one standard deviation.’’ (And no need for the following sentence) Implemented.

 Comments 283. Shouldn’t we mention the Upsilon flow measurements, somewhere, that are also good hints that the b’s don’t flow? (Alice, CMS…) No upsilon v2 measurement in small systems is available.

 Comments 291. ‘’Signal" -> ‘’parameter’’ (cause we don’t have a signal, being compatible with zero…) Implemented.

#### From Olga Evdokimov

 Comments The abstract needs major re-working. Pretty much all sentences are too long and complex, and would benefit from rearranging. I am putting this to “Type B” because in many cases the meaning (or the proper emphasis) is completely lost. For example: “In pp collisions, v2 signals for prompt charm hadrons, comparable to those for light-flavor hadron species, are reported for the first time over a transverse momentum range of 2–4 GeV.” What is done “for the first time”? v2 reported for prompt charm? Compared? First time in 2-4? Same issue: “The v2 signal for open beauty hadrons is extracted for the first time via nonprompt D0 mesons in pPb collisions, with a magnitude smaller than that for prompt D0 mesons with transverse momenta of 2–5 GeV.”. “First time” for what?? Open beauty via nonprompt D0? First time in pPb? First time with smaller magnitude? All this needs to be fixed, and regrouped, if you will. Please start with clearly spelling what (observable) was measured “and make clear what “first” means”. Then report pure observation (i.e., non-zero charm and beauty v2, specify the measurement ranges). Then discuss comparisons (same/not same as light/as prompt, etc.). Also, in the opening sentence (maybe split into 2?) please do not separate “pp and pPb” from “corresponding luminosities…” buy the whole separate statement. To be discussed. Rewrote the abstract.

#### From Stephen Sanders

 Comments The paper needs to do a better job at highlighting when pPb prompt D0 results are from the current work, or corresponds to the previous CMS paper. I found this particularly confusing when trying to reconcile Figs. 5 and 6. In Fig. 5, the average pPb prompt D0 v2 in the 185-250 range seems very similar with the pt ranges of 2 to 4 and 4 to 6. From Fig. 6 I would expect a significant difference, depending, perhaps on the mean pt. Since this paper is measuring the same quantity as presented earlier by CMS, there should either be a statement of consistency or a clear statement that the current results just represents an extension of the previous analysis. The first sentence in the abstract suggests both prompt and non-prompt results will be presented for both pp and pPb. To be discussed. Implemented. In v21, we made following changes: added a sentencee in abstract, "Compared at similar event multiplicities, the prompt D0 meson v2 values in pp and pPb collisions are similar in magnitude"; added a sentence in result section, "To further investigate possible system size dependence of collectivity for charm hadrons in small colliding systems, v2 for prompt D0 mesons in pPb and pp collisions are both measured in different multiplicity classes."; added a sentence in the caption of Fig. 5, "v2sub values in pPb collisions with 185 ≤ Ntrkoffline < 250 are measured in different pt ranges from Ref 53 and are found to be consistent with Ref 53."

 Comments l40. "its" has no clear attachment. Or, the obvious attachment is to "origin of ...collectivity" which doesn't make much sense. Now it reads "Further detailed investigations, including multiplicity dependence of charm quark collectivity in both pPb and pp systems and the collective behavior of beauty quarks, are important to address many open questions in understanding the origin of heavy-flavor quark collectivity in small systems."

 Comments l44. Sqrt[s] not defined. Implemented.

 Comments l45. Sqrt[s_NN] not defined. Implemented.

 Comments l47. The "comparing" clause has no clear attachment. Suggest: "of multiplicity with results for the pp and pPb collision systems compared." Implemented.

 Comments l56. eta not defined. Also, with the mix of a symmetric and an asymmetric system, I suggest attaching "lab" or "cm" to all occurrences of eta and y to maintain a consistent notation. Implemented.

 Comments l74. Is it clear that the track collection only contains "primary" tracks? This might depend on how you define "primary." Track collection does not only contains "primary" tracks. The exact definition of primary tracks are explained in the reference we quote here. In paper v21, changed "primary tracks" to "offline selected tracks". And also added a reference where Ntrkoffline is defined.

 Comments l215. "pileup" is jargon and needs to be defined (as per official CMS guidelines). Added a sentence explaining "pileup". "Though data collected with low beam intensity are used in this analysis, there are still additional collisions besides the one of interest per bunch crossing, which are known as pileup interactions."

 Comments l231. "smeared" is either jargon or slang. In either case, should be stated clearly. Implemented. The DCA template distributions of prompt and nonprompt D0 mesons from MC simulation are smeared via scaling the width of these distributions.

 Comments l233. "are quoted as a systematic uncertainty of 0.007." (Otherwise, not clear how clause should be read.) Implemented.

#### From Sevil Salur

 Comments Line 10, While you nicely refer the [42] later in line 20, it would be good to add some reference earlier around these line, like https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2016/8460349 ; or references within and add something about the flow effects due to initial state dynamics earlier then the end of the paragraph. Implemented.

 Comments Line 76 ,Why don’t you want to explicitly state D0 and D0bar here and correspondingly the decay K++pi-? Explicitly state these right now.

 Comments Line 89: as well as for each individual pt range —> and for all pt ranges Implemented.

 Comments Line 128/129: Please clarify/rephrase the sentence “The analysis …” unclear what does dividing it into intervals of invariant mass mean, and if it is just lets say 1.85 to 1.87 please rephrase how big these intervals are. Rephrase a bit. "dividing it into 14 intervals of invariant mass". Bins are shown in Fig. 1 and 2.

 Comments Line 130: Could you please comment on how can the efficiency and acceptance correction are 0 for the D0 yield. Are you saying that we have a 100% efficient detector, what about cuts in the decay particles? Added a sentence, "The corresponding effects are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:systematics}." v2 is Fourier harmonic, not associated with yields. It will not change a lot in a small pt bin.

 Comments Line 154: Maybe discuss here that a similar procedure is applied for the charge conjugate. Were there any differences in the methodology for the charge conjugate? We treat D0 and D0bar equally.

 Comments Fig 1 & 2: Why is the bin width choice has changed between V2 and inv mass spectrum? The dip location appears to move in the fit functions in the V2. Are the fits constrained? Also again for V2 plots, what are the chi2 fits for these fits? Are they satisfactory fits? Maybe add a sentence or so in the tex of the paper the goodness of these fits. The mass peak where signal centralizes is very narrow and decrease or increase rapidily. To smooth the rapid change, smaller bins are used in the peak region. The fit is constrained by mass spectra. Typical chi2/ndf is about 1~2.

 Comments Table 1 caption and also in the paper text: Please add that the ranges of systematic uncertainties correspond to the pt ranges of D0 & D0bar. Or that is what I assume so please clarify in the caption. Also what about multiplicity choice of events? Are they constant through out various event multiplicity selections? Implemented.

### Type A

##### Figures
 Comments In figures 4, 5 and 6 I suggest to keep overall about the same marker size. In Fig. 4 and 5, it is less confusing if you keep prompt D0 in pp and blue filled circle (adopting in Fig. 4the larger size as in Fig. 5) The markers seem to grow in size from Fig. 5 to 6. Please try to provide a standard size for these three figures (perhaps as in Fig. 6). Implemented. Enlarged marker sizes in Fig. 4 and 5. But due to the differences between canvas sizes, marker sizes still have differences. It may not be good to have two full circle on the same canvas.

##### Abstract
 Comments 5th and 6th line from bottom, it reads better with a change of order: move "with transverse momenta of 2-5 GeV" to be right after "...nonprompt D0 mesons with pPb collisions", to read "... non prompt D0 mesons with pPb collisions with transverse momenta of 2-5 GeV, with magnitude small than that for prompt D0 mesons. " Implemented the advice from George Stephans. Break the sentence into two.

##### Main Text
 Comments L 5-10: too long, I suggest to split in two sentences: the first stops after [31-34]. The second starts by "This observation raised the question...", and end by replacing "there" by "in such cases." Implemented the advice from George Stephans. Break the sentence into two.

 Comments L 6: add "being" --> "... are also being observed..." Implemented.

 Comments L 7: remove "recent years" (not needed); add "colliding" before "small systems"; add comma after "multiplicity" Implemented.

 Comments L 21: there --> their Implemented.

 Comments L 23: "In AA collisions, a strong ..." --> "A strong elliptic flow signal..." Implemented.

 Comments L 30: insert "colliding" between small and systems --> "In small colliding systems..." Implemented.

 Comments L 34: Is this evidence really strong? I would suggest to remove the adjective "strong" and leaving only "evidence" Implemented.

 Comments L 40: in --> for ("for understanding the origin...") Implemented.

 Comments L 41: rewrite: " in both pPb and pp systems, and its collective behavior" --> in both pPb and pp collisions, and the collective behavior..." Implemented.

 Comments L 80: add "that": "... by assuming that one of the tracks..." Implemented.

 Comments L 96: "(with and without being normalized by its uncertainty)" --> "(normalized or not by its uncertainty)" Implemented.

 Comments L 97: "And those related to decay products are..." --> "The training variables related to the decay products are..." Implemented.

 Comments L 100 and 102: backgrounds --> background Implemented.

 Comments L 101: "... candidates are considered dominant..." --> "... candidates are considered to be dominant..." Implemented.

 Comments L 104-105: rearrange the sentence: "... give better performance than using SS background candidate in achieving higher non prompt D0 fractions, especially at higher p_T." --> "... give better performance for achieving higher nonprompt D0 fractions than using SS background candidate in, especially at higher p_T." Implemented.

 Comments L 107: In extracting... --> For extracting Implemented.

 Comments L 108: "... D0 momentum vector to the primary vertex are fitted..." --> "... D0 momentum vector, relative to the primary vertex, are fitted..." Implemented.

 Comments L 109: remove comma after "fitted" Implemented.

 Comments L 120: "... where \Delta \eta and \Delta\phi are the differences in pseudorapidity \eta_{lab} and azimuthal angle \phi of each pair." Implemented.

 Comments L 136: "Including additional Fourier terms has a negligible effect"--> "The inclusion of additional Fourier terms to the fit has negligible effect." Implemented.

 Comments L 139: "Due to limited statistical precision, only...." --> "Due to the limited statistical precision of the available data, only..." Implemented.

 Comments L 147: "... to describe processes D0 --> \pi^{+}\pi^{-} (S(m_{\pi^+\pi^-)) and D0 --> \K^+K^- (S(m_{K^+K^-));" Implemented.

 Comments L 164: "In extracting..." --> "For extracting..." Implemented.

 Comments L 177: add "the" --> "... D0 fraction in each of the three DCA regions..." Implemented.

 Comments L 198: evalauted --> evaluated Implemented.

#### From Raphael Granier de Cassagnac

##### Abstract and Main Text

 Comments - The+se+ new measurements ? Implemented. "The new measurements" -> "These new measurements"

 Comments 14. Do we need an’s’ at flow ? To be discussed with CCLE

 Comments 41. The second ‘’its’’ does not work, Either change it in ‘’the’’, or insist on ''the relative collective behavior of beauty and charm quarks’' Implemented.

 Comments 71. Can get rid of the second ‘’event’’, AFAIK To be discussed with CCLE

 Comments 101. ‘’Considered +as+ dominant’’ ? (But check with CCLE) Implemented.

 Comments 113. Section 4 -> following section ? They are equivalent to us.

 Comments 218. larger pileup -effects- (remove effects or find a better explanation, cause here is looks like the effect is larger because the effect is larger) Implemented.

 Comments 251. No need for ‘’earlier’' Implemented.

 Comments 280. Generate (typo) -> pass a spell checker on the paper Implemented.

#### From Olga Evdokimov

 Comments 1st and 2nd sentences – “behavior” is used 3 times, please rephrase. collective behavior -> collecitivity, hydrodynamic behavior -> hydrodynamic behavior, collective behavior -> collective phenomena

 Comments l.13 “The second and third Fourier anisotropy coefficients are known as elliptic (v2) and triangular (v3) flow.” -- This introduced rather abruptly here (not explained why you’re are picking these two of all terms), you may want to add that these are typically most prominent terms We have a setence following these concepts to tell people they reflect QGP properties.

 Comments L.21 Needs transition! You need to add a sentence (to the previous paragraph) along the lines that particles of different masses/quark content have been used successfully to test QGP collectivity (or something) Implemented.

 Comments l.41 and its collective behavior of beauty and charm quarks. -> and the details of collective behavior for beauty and charm quarks. Implemented.

 Comments l.47 comparing -> allowing to compare Implemented advice from Stephen Sanders.

 Comments l.48 pT must be spelled out when used for the first time It has already been introduced.

 Comments l.56 same for eta (spell out “pseudorapidity”) Implemented.

 Comments l.97 And those -> Those Implemented.

 Comments l.98 ; -> , To be discussed with CCLE.

 Comments l.109 I am having a deja vu moment here, I am sure I made this very comment before: “template probability distribution functions (PDFs) “ – PDF is the well-established acronym for the parton distribution functions, redefining it will be confusing. Go for “template probability distributions” and shorten this to “PD” then or just use “template distribution” and do TD (essentially, anything would be better than “PDF” ) Implemented with "PD".

 Comments l.116 correlations with charged particles -> correlations of D0 candidates with charged particles Implemented.

 Comments l.250 which is comparable -> comparable Implemented.

 Comments l.251 “earlier in pPb collisions” – need to specify energy here since it’s different from your pp measurements Implemented.

 Comments l.255 multiplicity, -> multiplicity Implemented.

 Comments Summary: similar issues as the abstract, I would recommend again breaking down to separate points, for example: To be discussed. Implemented in v21.

 Comments l.287 -> “ In pp collisions with Noffline>100 prompt charm v2 was measured or the first time over transverse momentum range of 2 – 8 GeV. We report indications of positive prompt charm v2 signals in the transverse momentum interval of 2–4 GeV. In this kinematic range, the observed magnitude of D0 v2 is found to be comparable (or slightly smaller) to those for light flavor hadron species.” Implemented.

#### From Stephen Sanders

 Comments In abstract, spelling error: postive Implemented

 Comments l5-10: This sentence has awkward tense changes. Suggest: "Although not originally expected, similar long-range collective azimuthal correlations have also been observed for small systems with high final-state particle multiplicity. These correlations are found in proton-proton (pp), .... [31-37], raising the question as to whether a tiny fluid-like QGP medium might even be possible with a small system size [35]." Implemented.

 Comments l14: flow, respectively. Added a "respectively" after the sentence after this one.

 Comments lines 24, 139, 150, 225, 261: All are incorrect usages of "due to." To be discussed with CCLE. Implemented in v21.

 Comments l99: space needed after "same-sign". Implemented.

 Comments l101: are considered as dominant Implemented.

 Comments l170 (and others): Format Eq.(space)(#). Here you lack a space between "." and ")" and you add an extra space after "(". Implemented.

 Comments l238: quoted as 0.013- Implemented.

 Comments l280: Spelling error: "genearte" Implemented.

#### From Sijin Qian

 Comments the "beauty" hadrons and mesons are used. However, almost all other CMS and HEP papers are using "bottom hadron" (e.g. the article title of Ref.[20] on L399, etc.) and "bottom quark" (e.g. L21, etc.), as well as "bottomonium", etc. To be consistent with all other CMS and HEP papers, I'm not sure whether you would like to consider a change of all "beauty" --> "bottom" everywhere in this paper. We want to follow previous heavy ion publications.

 Comments I'm curious that the detector simulation package GEANT has not been mentioned yet. This seems different from all other CMS papers. I'm not sure whether it should be briefly mentioned by a sentence with a Reference somewhere in the Section 2 or 3. Not every paper cite GEANT paper, for instance arXiv:1609.02366.

 Comments L6-7, L12, L24-25, L45, L56, L66, L98 and L115-116. The "phi", "small system", "Au", "Pb", "sNN" may should be explained at their 1st appearances in text on L6-7, L24-25, L45 and L56, i.e. Implemented.

 Comments L6-7: (for "phi" and "small system", especially for the latter, I seem have not clearly figured out what the "small" means here yet and how small is the "small") "collective azimuthal correlations are also observed in recent years for small systems with ..." --> "collective azimuthal (phi) correlations are also observed in recent years for small systems (which is ..., the "small" is ...) with ..." "Small systems" are small compared to AA systems. We mentioned in the paper.

 Comments L24-25: (for "Au" and "Pb")" in both AuAu collisions at RHIC [45] and PbPb collisions ..." --> "in both gold-gold (AuAu) collisions at RHIC [45] and lead-lead (PbPb) collisions ..." Implemented.

 Comments L45: (for "NN") "pPb collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 8.16 TeV," --> "pPb collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy sqrt(sNN) = 8.16 TeV," Implemented.

 Comments L56: "cover the range 2.9 < \abs(eta) < 5.2." --> "cover the pseudorapidity range 2.9 < \abs(eta) < 5.2." Implemented.

 Comments L12 and L116: (two places) "azimuthal correlation" -->"phi correlation", L66: "in the nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass frame" --> "in the NN center-of-mass frame", L115: "The azimuthal anisotropies of ..." --> "The phi anisotropies of ...", L48: "for 2 < pT < 5 GeV and 5 < pT < 8 GeV," --> "for pT = 2-5 and 5-8 GeV," They are equivalent.

 Comments L98: (also, a semi-colon may be better to be changed to a comma, and another comma is added after the "eta"). "are: pT; pseudorapidity and the longitudinal and transverse ..." --> "are: pT, eta, and the longitudinal and transverse ..." To be discussed with CCLE.

 Comments (two places, as "A" has been explained on L2) "(pp), proton-nucleus (pA), and lighter nucleus-nucleus systems," --> "(pp), pA, and lighter AA systems," We want to make them explicit.

 Comments L110: (as the "MC" has already been explained on L91) "derived from Monte Carlo (MC) simulation." --> "derived from MC simulation." Implemented.

 Comments L125-126: (as it is so obvious for the B(0,0) = B(Delta(eta), Delta(phi)) at Delta(eta) = 0 and Delta(phi) = 0, that not necessary to mention it) "The B(0, 0) represents the value of B(Delta(eta), Delta(phi)) at Delta(eta) = 0 and Delta(phi) = 0. It is evaluated by ..." --> "The B(0, 0) is evaluated by ..." We want to emphasize the following interpolation.

 Comments L30, it seems looked and sound better if a comma is added after the 3rd word, i.e. "In small systems the study of heavy-flavor hadron ..." --> "In small systems, the study of heavy-flavor hadron ..." Implemented.

 Comments L78, I'm not sure whether the "resolution" should be plural, i.e. "momentum and mass resolution," --> "momentum and mass resolutions," To be discussed with CCLE.

 Comments L103, to be consistent in this paper, it'll be looked better if a space is added after the symbol "<", i.e. "fractions <5% of nonprompt ..." --> "fractions < 5% of nonprompt ..." Implemented.

 Comments L117:"the two-dimensional (2D) correlation ..." --> "the two-dimensional correlation ...", L133: (then should be spelled out) "of 2D correlation functions and fitted" --> "of two-dimensional correlation functions and fitted" They are equivalent.

 Comments L120-121, the "S(Delta(eta), Delta(phi))" is explained as "The same-event pair distribution", would this "S" refer to the "same"?. L122, the "B(Delta(eta), Delta(phi))" is explained as "The mixed-event pair yield distribution", but what is this "B" refer to? L142, the "S+B" in the superscript of "V2DeltaS+B", I presume that they are the "Signal+Background"; if so, they may should be explained on L143, i.e. "is performed in each pT interval." --> "is performed in each pT interval (where the "S+B" is Signal+Background)." (d) L145, what is the "S" in "S(minv)" standing for? L147, what is the "SW" in "SW(minv)" standing for? After all, I see three "S(italic)", two "B" and an "SW" symbols in the above items (a)-(d); and wonder whether they are related each other or not. If they are totally different, I'm not sure whether some ways can be found to distinguish them; at least, each symbol "S", "B" and "W" should be clearly explained what they are standing for. "S" always means "signal". "B" means background. "SW" means swap component.

 Comments L169: (an extra space before the equation index should be removed) i.e. "are evaluated by using Eq.( 3)." --> "are evaluated by using Eq.(3).". L180 and Fig.3's caption (the last line): (two places) "for 2 < pT < 5 GeV and 5 < pT < 8 GeV," --> "for pT = 2-5 and 5-8 GeV,". L209 and L211: (two places) "an uncertainty of less than 0.0xx." --> "an uncertainty of < 0.0xx." L228: "is found to be smaller than 0.008." --> "is found to be < 0.008." L232: "DCA width is 2%-8%," --> "DCA width is 2-8%," Implemented.

 Comments 285-288, in the Summary Section, per the PubComm guidelines, some acronyms and variables (e.g. "pp", "pPb", "sNN", "Ntrkoffline" and "v2", etc.) may should be explained (or spelled out if it would not be used again in this Section) at their 1st appearances in this Section on these lines, since some readers may only read the Summary Section instead of whole paper, i.e. (five places, together with the item (1a) above for "beauty") "in pp collisions sqrt(s) = 13 TeV, and for nonprompt D0 mesons from beauty hadron decays in pPb collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 8.16 TeV are presented. In pp collisions with Nofflinetrk >= 100, the indications of positive v2 signals for prompt charm hadrons is ..." --> "in proton-proton (pp) collisions sqrt(s) = 13 TeV, and for nonprompt D0 mesons from bottom hadron decays in p-lead (pPb) collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy sqrt(sNN) = 8.16 TeV are presented. In pp collisions with offline track multiplicity >= 100, the indications of positive signals of the second Fourier harmonics (v2) for the azimuthal distributions of prompt charm hadrons is ..." Implemented.

 Comments Figs.1-2, in the legend of each plot, the 3rd line, the 2nd wordshould be in the lower case, i.e. "D0+D0bar Signal" --> "D0+D0bar signal", Fig.3, in the horizontal axis labels of the right two plots, the last word should be in the lower case, i.e. "Nonprompt D0 Fraction" --> "Nonprompt D0 fraction". Fig. 6, in the legend and plot labels, the left column, the 1st and 4th lines, to be consistent in this paper, two spaces should be added before and after each symbol "<" in two inequalities, i.e. "\abs(ylab)<1", "1.2<\abs(ylab)<2.4" --> "\abs(ylab) < 1", "1.2 < \abs(ylab) < 2.4 " Implemented.

 Comments L298-340, this paper is not too long (only a little more than 11 pages and 296 lines without counting the Acknowledgments and References Sections), thus a short version of Acknowledgments Section may be sufficient. Many other CMS papers with similar or longer lengths still use the short version of Acknowledgments. Please consult with some published CMS papers on this. One important CMS paper you may consult with is our Higgs boson discovery paper HIG-12-028, which is 31-pages long (i.e. nearly three times longer than the length of this paper), but its Acknowledgments Section has only 25 lines that is less than 60% of Acknowledgments in your this v19. Implemented.

 Comments Throughout Reference Section, there are four types of expression for the subscript "NN" of "sqrt(sNN)" in the article titles, i.e. NN (a) is italic with the small letter size and placed lower, this expression is consistent with all main text of this paper; (b) is non-italic with the larger letter size and placed higher, e.g. Refs.[24], [32], [47], [49] and [52]-[53]; (c) is non-italic with the smaller letter size and placed lower, e.g. Refs.[1]-[2] and [50]-[51]; (d) is italic with the larger letter size and placed higher, e.g. Refs.[23] and [48]. The "NN" in all Refs. in the items (b)-(d) may should be changed to be consistent with (a). Implemented.

 Comments L342, in [1], to be consistent in this Section (e.g. [2], [4], [28], [30], [33] and [60], etc.) and this paper, two extra spaces before and after the symbol "+" in the article title may should be removed, i.e. (together with the item (15) above for the "sNN") "flow in Au + Au collisions at sqrt(sNN(non-italic)) = 130 GeV" --> "flow in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN(italic)) = 130 GeV". Other ones which also need to be changed are by the similar way: [3], [29], [34](two "+"s) and [45]; and by the opposite way (to add a space): [17]-[18] (for "=13" --> "= 13"), and [24] for "5!TeV" --> "5 TeV"). Implemented.

 Comments L414, in [24], to be consistent in this Section, all references should have only one page index instead of two, i.e. "473-83, doi: ..." --> "473, doi: ..." Implemented.

 Comments L512 and L514, in [58], to be consistent in this Section, (a) the author part should be shortened obviously, (b) the names of institute and city should be removed, i.e. "[58] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement ...... Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-002, CERN, Geneva, 2018." --> "[58] CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement ...... Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-002, 2018." They are equivalent.

 Comments L522, in [61], it'll be looked nicer if the hyphen after the 1st word in the article title should be extended to a longer dash symbol, i.e. "TMVA -- the toolkit for multivariate data" --> "TMVA --- the toolkit for multivariate data" Implemented.

 Comments L525, in [62], a letter is missing in the author's name yet, i.e. "[62] T. Sjstrand ..." --> "[62] T. Sjo(with two dots on the top of "o")strand ..." Implemented.

 Comments The "year" numbers should be given for Ref.[70]. If there would be problems to display the year number with the default bib file, it may be fixed by changing from "article" to "unpublished" in the bib file. Implemented.
-- YousenZhang - 2020-07-30
Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
pdf HIN-19-009-diff-FR.pdf r1 manage 750.7 K 2020-07-31 - 12:47 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-diff-prev1-v22-prev2-v22.pdf r1 manage 734.2 K 2020-08-07 - 17:05 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-diff-v21-prev2-v22.pdf r1 manage 740.9 K 2020-08-07 - 16:42 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-diff-v22-prev1-v23.pdf r1 manage 733.3 K 2020-08-18 - 02:34 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-diff-v23-v25.pdf r1 manage 732.7 K 2020-08-27 - 02:22 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-diff-v26-v27.pdf r1 manage 738.3 K 2020-09-07 - 07:05 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-paper-v27-PLB-style.pdf r1 manage 479.5 K 2020-09-07 - 07:05 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-prev1-v23.pdf r1 manage 729.9 K 2020-08-18 - 02:34 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-prev2-v22.pdf r1 manage 730.0 K 2020-08-07 - 16:42 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-prev22.pdf r1 manage 730.2 K 2020-08-06 - 06:43 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-v20v21-diff-FR.pdf r1 manage 750.7 K 2020-08-03 - 02:42 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-v21-prev22-diff.pdf r1 manage 740.7 K 2020-08-06 - 06:43 YousenZhang
pdf HIN-19-009-v26-diff-ccle.pdf r1 manage 733.1 K 2020-08-31 - 14:56 YousenZhang
Topic revision: r17 - 2020-09-07 - YousenZhang

Webs

Welcome Guest

 Cern Search TWiki Search Google Search Main All webs
Copyright &© 2008-2021 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback