here are my comments to the CNM chapter. I read the version of 25 March, from the twiki.

ciao Andrea

convener 1

convener 2

convener 3

convener 4

716: I propose to have a section called “Introduction” here, which will include also the general RAA definition (as we discussed)

Done, to be discussed if we merge sections 3.1 and 3.2

716: AA -> AB

We don't understand: it is already written A-B

720: Y -> N

We prefer to use Y for yield instead of N (simple number)

number the equations

724: rm “atomic”

725: add a paragraph with the chapter outline

727: because heavy quarks are produced in hard processes in the early …

728: rm “Apart from hot and dense medium effects”

731: here and later change from bold to italics

737: here and later, and with “.” instead of “;”

746: \bar -> \overline

We use the command \newcommand{\QQbar}{\ensuremath{{Q\overline{Q}}}\xspace}

749: between -> of; rm “or a QQ state”

751: bf -> it

eq 13: add the dependence on muF^2 for sigmahat

759-760: is this relevant? what kind of process would this be?

This is the formula used in Fig. 39, and it corresponds to first order quarkonium production, i.e. with a very soft gluon.

eq 15: define y (strictly speaking it’s the rapidity of the QQbar pair, and one assumes that it is similar to that of the hadron)

sqrtsNN

768 and 769: heavy-ion -> nucleus-nucleus

778: Eq. (15) and (16)

778: ox

779: c in italics

780: in pA collisions -> for CNM effects (in fact they are valid also for AA)

We've had long discussions on whether or not the chapter is dedicated to CNM effects or to p-A collisions, which is not the same as you point out. In that section we also discuss hot effects (comovers, hydro effects) and focus only on pA collisions (extrapolation to AA in another section), so we prefer to keep that title.

Fig 24: why using mT and not Q^2 on the y axis? PDFs depend on Q^2 and the current plot gives the impression that D and Jpsi have a different coverage for the study of CNM effects, while it is not the case. Or am I missing something?

… it depends what you called Q^2 ! Typically in perturbative calculation, mT would be a rather 'natural' choice for the factorization scale.

Added 'due to the destructive interferences from the scattering on different nucleons'

794: extremely larger -> quantify

Gamma depends on y and pT. Instead we changed 'becomes much larger than the nuclear size at the LHC. '

897: the saturation scale is not defined

Added '(below which gluon distribution in a nucleus starts to saturate)' (sufficiently vague to be true)

917: relate l_c to the times in section 3.2.1?

I replaced coherence length l_c by coherence time t_c

fig 30: xF is not defined (I think); can the arrow on top of the left figure be removed?

1028: plots -> figures of the following sections

Table 8: Medium effects -> CNM effects; add references; why are there empty cells in the table? is this missing information or fields that do not apply to a given model?

1030: the next sub-sections -> this section; rm “performed”

1032: subsections -> sections

1036: endeavour into -> carry out

1049: give sqrt for CDF data

1049: give some numbers for the error of the scaling factor vs pT, as it is done later for onia

1064-78: this part seems too long and detailed

1090: hydro -> is this the first time it is mentioned in the context of pA? Maybe it should be introduced in the introduction, as a short sentence with references.

1093: the s of K0 should be upper case and not italics

1098: eta_lab -> eta?

1102: The Dalitz

1107: origin -> track; scrutinizing -> exploting

1108: later -> latter

1110: in agreement -> consistent

1111: with -> on; has been -> was

1114: the midrapidity low pT is not well described by Vitev

1125: hydrodynamics -> too generic, should be introduced earlier on

1132: can we comment on the comparison with pp or theory?

1136: I would remove the sentence “Up to today… lower energies”

1138: rm “This … distribution” (it was not done for pPb)

1142: small or negligible -> smaller than 10-20%

1152: what do you mean by “initial state effects” here?

1170: Jpsi + K or phi

1178: cite PYTHIA

1180: Within uncertainties, these results conform …

1201: the medium -> due to CNM effects

1203: ALICE -> add reference to a proceeding (should be already in the biblio)

1206: rm “At RHIC …collisions”; rm “mainly”; channel -> channels

1212: it is a bit weird to use y for STAR and y_lab for ALICE

1221: is -> are

1231: rm “also”

1238: “, as shown in Fig. 36.”

1239: “at LHC energy”

fig 39: move fig to top of the page (also for the following figures)

the option [!htp] is used. Is there another option to be used to force the figure to be moved at the top?

1262: center -> centre (change everywhere)

1277: are consistent

1278: aforementioned models

fig 40: add ref for ALICE data

1288: overestimate*s*

1299: density-weighted

1301: r_{\rm T}

1313: about 1.4 at pT of 7 GeV /c

1322: heavy flavour probes are characterized by the same ….

1324: fig -> Fig; heavy-flavour decay leptons

1328: suggesting that the reduction of Jpsi production is related to the reduction of c\overline c pair production

1329: than leptons from open heavy-flavour decays

comment on the caveat of comparing Jpsi and leptons vs pT: Jpsi pT is the pT of the ccbar pair, while leptons come from D mesons with signicantly larger pT, which in turn come from c quarks with even larger pT. I.e. a Jpsi with pT 1 GeV comes from a ccbar pait with pT 1 GeV, a ! GeV electron could come from a c quark with pT of 5 GeV or more.

we added: One should however emphasize that the comparison of the open heavy-flavour and \jpsi production is carried out as a function of \pt. The c quark fragments into a charm mesons which in turn decays into a lepton and it is not straightforward to relate the decay lepton momentum to the parent quark momentum in order to interpret accurately this comparison.

1335: for -> of

1336: check if the binding energies are the same as given in ch 5

1348-50: add a space before \sigma (with \,)

1353: follows a similar; than -> as

1359: does -> do; rm “such”

1360: fig -> Fig; It describes -> They describe; effect was -> effects were

1366: pp collisions

1368: both -> the two

1379: give a hint

1380: A similar; B-mesons -> B mesons

1390: at slightly -> in slightly

1393: y -> $y$

1394: effect*s*

1396: are not precise enough to be sensitive to a difference as observed by CMS.

1398: in between -> between

1400: using pp collisions

1401: lower than one by 2.4\,\sigma

1404: neither -> nor

1405: in a larger -> with a large

why would measurements with large y range help?

we added: Precise measurements in a larger rapidity range, which covers different comoving medium density, would help to confirm this hypothesis.

1407-10: multiplicity -> activity

1411: rm “event activity”

1412: comma after “involved”

1413: is related to Multi-Parton Interactions (MPI)..

1417: rises -> slopes

1419: details -> detail

1422: disccused -> discussed

1423: I would remove “rather straightforwardly”

1424: comma before “discussed”

1428: the relation (14) -> Eq. (14)

eq 23: \times -> \cdot

1440: Q\overline Q

We use the command \newcommand{\QQbar}{\ensuremath{{Q\overline{Q}}}\xspace}

1452: nucleus—nucleus; includes -> include; color -> colour; as is -> as

1454: rm “such”

1455-72-73: center -> centre

1458-9: scenarios (twice)

1478: 8/7 -> shouldn’t it be 5.02/2.76*exp(-0.465) ?

We have the following relations:

sqrt(s^PbPb) = 2 Z/A E_p^PbPb,

sqrt(s^pPb) = 2 sqrt(Z/A) E_p^pPb

y_CM/lab^pPb = 1/2 ln(A/Z)

So, putting all together, we get:

x^PbPb / x^pPb = E_p^pPb / E_p^PbPb = 8 TeV / 7 TeV = 1.14

1482: combination

1481: this is discussed also in chapter 5, please check and avoid repetition

In the CNM section, we are supposed to explain how the extrapolation from p-A to A-A collisions can be done. So, it is natural to compute here the RpA (+y)*RpA(-y) fator, and we don't think it is a problem to repeat this value in Quarkoinia section.

1491: flavours -> flavour

1491: is consistent with binary scaling within uncertainties (maybe quantify them); I think there is no indication of a slight suppression at low pT

1493: comma after midrapidity: when we move to the most forward bins -> at forward rapidity

1496: remove “points”

1499: heavy-flavours -> heavy flavour; favour /disfavour -> discriminate

1502: “but compatible…” -> not clear, needs to be rephrased

1504: presently unique -> only

1506: rm “So”

1507: but the present experimental uncertainties do not allow for definite conclusions

1508: heavy-flavours -> heavy flavour

1510: I would remove this part on the systematic errors

Why?

1510: bandes -> bands

1512: high statistic -> high-statistics

1514: In -> At

1516-1520: not clear what the message is; maybe I would put this part in section 3.4

No, here we discuss not only status but also short-term perspectives, i.e. Run-II. So, it is natural to discussed the best strategy for next p-Pb run.

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version |  | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions...
Topic revision: r7 - 2015-04-17 - FrancoisArleo

 Cern Search TWiki Search Google Search ReteQuarkonii All webs
Copyright &© 2008-2020 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