your chapter is very nice! congratulations.

Here are my comments for the first part.

I will send the rest at the beginning of next week.

ciao Andrea

——

general: I think we should put the paper references in all figure captions, especially for data

Done for all experimental results

945: expected -> I would described it as a fact not as an expectation

Ok

945: sqrtsNN

Ok

947: rm “just”

Ok

949: in high

Ok

957: target -> environment? or just “in nuclei”

We write "in nuclei"

959: "nuclear medium” -> maybe specify “with the partons of the crossing nuclei” ?

Ok

962: also here “nuclear medium” -> “crossing nuclei”?

Ok

967: I think “acceptance corrected” is not needed (btw it is corrected also for eff)

Ok

968: in OHF chapter we used N instead of Y, ie RAA= dNdpT/ …

Ok, we replace Y with N to be consistent with OHF chapter

971: rm “Jpsi”

Ok

Here it may be useful to mention that RAA is studied also as a function of pT and y; and v2 could also be mentioned

Ok

985: rm “now”

Ok

989: refer to chapter on pp

We already refer to the pp section few lines later (994). Is it ok?

996: rm “pT”

Ok

Table 4: define “DY”

Ok

Fig 25: add PbPb in the caption; why is the ALICE Y band and forward y not filled? I wonder if we can “claim” that CMS can go to pt=0 in PbPb for forward Jpsi…

Was a copy&paste mistake in the macro. I made the forward Y now solid red over the full pT range. Regarding CMS, I don't see a problem with it, because CMS published it in pp. So it's not a detector acceptance constraint. The challenge reaching pT=0 in PbPb is explained in the last sentence.

1007: This chapter is organized as follows. First …

Ok

1014: concentrate on LHC -> true? all RHIC results are shown

text is slightly modified

1019: To -> The

Ok

1024: rm “our overview”

Ok

1027: put “lattice QCD” in the title?

Ok, we write "Sequential suppression and lattice QCD"

1031: define colour screening radius? define quarkonium radius?

I now write "The quark-gluon plasma consists of deconfined color charges, so that the binding of a QQbar pair is subject to the effect of color screening which limits the range of strong interactions. More in details, the fate of heavy quark bound states in a quark-gluon plasma depends on the size of the colour screening radius $r_D$ (which is inversely proportional to the density of charges, so that it decreases with increasing temperature) in comparison to the quarkonium binding radius...

table 3: “exp. mass” -> what is exp.? add ref in caption

We can simply write "mass"

1038: why “muon pairs”? maybe this needs a sentence of introduction to define the spectral function and the invariant mass etc…

We have now rephrased all the sentences on spectral functions. We now write "The spectral function $\rho(\omega)$ is the basic quantity encoding the equilibrium properties of a quarkonium state. It characterizes the spectral distribution of strength as a function of energy $\omega$. Bound or resonance states manifest as peaks with well defined mass and spectral width. The in-medium spectral properties of quarkonia are related to phenomenology, since the masses determine the equilibrium abundances, their inelastic widths determine formation and destruction rates (or chemical equilibration times) and their elastic widths affect momentum spectra (and determine the kinetic equilibration times)."

1039: x and q are not defined, omega is not defined

see above

1043-45: this could go before 1038

see above

1050: define tau; [omega) -> (omega)

fixed typo [omega)->(omega). Define tau in L1047 "the fourth is the imaginary (Euclidean) time \tau."

1054: simple recipe -> colloquial

Riformulated in "The procedure is , then, based on the generation...". Can this be ok?

1058: The devi is in the details … Why? -> colloquial, not ok for a review

ok

1059: rm “us”

Ok

1067: HotQCD ?

configurations from the HotQCD collaboration

1075: energy density -> isn’t it more appropriate to say “temperature”

Ok

1076: one encounters feeddown -> colloquial

Ok, modified

should B decays also be mentioned here?

No, we prefer not to address B feed-down, since not strictly related to sequential melting

Fig 26: add reference

Ok

3.2.2: in my opinion this part could be merged with corresponding section prepared by Ramona for the CNM chapter, because it deals with CNM only and it repeats many things (eg CEM formula, parameter choices etc..). in addition it is interesting to see a direct comparison of shadowing in pPb and PbPb, by having the figures in consecutive pages

Since now Ramona has updated her text to avoid superposition with the CNM section, we can probably keep the paragraph also in our chapter

1098: flavo*u*r

Ok

fig 27: add sqrtsNN in caption and refs for EPS09 and Ramona calculations

Ok for EPS09 and Ramona

Which sqrtsnn should we put?

1117 ref for EPS09

Ok

1140: rm “we remark”

Ok

1154: elements -> element

Ok

fig 28-29: sqrtsNN and add that this is for Jpsi (?)

ok

1173: put “statistical” in the title? it only describes that approach

Ok

1187: refer to sec 3.2.1

Ok

1192: mass spectrum?

Ok

1213-1223: not ideal to describe the data “in words” before they are shown -> can this part be moved to the description of the model comparison to data?

Indeed we compare data and theory later on. However, we decided to keep a very short description of the data vs model comparison already when introducing the models...We have now shortened the text by writing "The statistical model reproduces the significant increase observed, for central collisions, in the Jpsi RAA at LHC as compared to RHIC (see Fig. 35)."

1228 ref to next section 3.2.4

Ok

1233: define tau and r

We now write " p0= ...,tau is the proper time and r is the spatial coordinate. Gamma...."

fig 30: V,U,F are defined only later

We now write "...defined in the text..."

1281: DDbar in mathrm

Ok

1284: define or cite “blast wave”

Ok, we add a reference

1286: (see

no, we are already in a parenthesis

1287: p_{\rm T}

Ok

1296: maybe use GeV for SPS and RHIC

Ok

1304: and TeV for LHC

Ok

1311: lose -> loss

Ok

1311: maybe use r and tau instead of x and t, like for TAMU

ok

1315: I think this is the first time “regeneration” is mentioned in this section. “formation” is used in 1238, but maybe it’s better to say explicitely at the beginning that in these models regeneration is considered

Ok, we riformulated a bit these lines writing "In contrast to collisions at SPS and RHIC energies, at LHC energy the large abundance of c and cbar quarks increases their combining probability to form a JPsi..."

1327: rm “the more and more … regeneration”

Ok

1330: I think the charm quarks do not need to be “thermalized” to have a v2

Ok, we remove it

1331: it is not explained by which mechanism primomordial Jpsi would acquire a path length dependence? is it because the dissociation probability depends on the path length?

yes, we now write "suppression dependence on the path through the medium"

fig 32: maybe it would be intersting to show also RAA for the same model

It is shown in the section where data are presented

1345: remove “first and second order” (what does it mean?)

This seems to be quite standard hydro terminology and further details are in the papers from Michael that we cite. So for the moment we keep the text as it is

1349: non-equilibrium (anisotropic) rates for quarkonium decays -> what does it mean? it sounds quite cryptic to me

changed to "together with the non-equilibrium (anisotropic) quarkonium rates."

1352: rule -> role

Ok

1352: what is the in-medium decay rate? rate=probability?

decay rate appears to be standard terminology. We have not changed it. The rate is of course related to the probability of a decay but it's not a value between 0 and 1, hence we keep rate.

1360: reference needed for eta/s value

ok

1360-62: move to section with data-model comparison?

Since the text is rather short, for the moment we prefer to keep it.

1379: comover interaction model -> it is not described? is it in the CNM chapter?

? comover model will be introduced in a new section before the theoretical summary