here are the comments to the rest of the chapter.

ciao Andrea

———

1401: maybe put “at RHIC and LHC” in the title?

Ok

1402: and “at LHC” in the title?

Ok

in this section sqrt(s) should be used everywhere instead of sqrtsNN

Ok

in the table 8 the y of rapidity should be in italics

Ok

fig 34 caption: maybe put Liu et al and Zhao et al after TAMU and THU, to make a connection with the notation used in the figure legend

Ok

1522: I’m not sure the stronger high-pT Jpsi suppression at LHC wrt RHIC allows to “support the existence of a longer lived and denser medium” at LHC. At the same pT, the charged particle suppression (which is also interpreted in terms of a dense medium) is similar at RHIC and LHC; could we maybe say that the results suggest that the temperature of the medium is higher at LHC?

Ok

1534-1538 and fig 39-right: this part (and figure) are present also in the OHF chapter; I would suggest to remove them, or refer to that chapter.

Figure removed. Text shortened to "Being capable of separating prompt \jpsi, CMS has also measured the \raa of non-prompt \jpsi discussed in Section~\ref{sec:OHFbeauty}."

1540: accessed by studying

Ok

1548: "quarks do thermalise" -> c quarks do not need to thermalise in the QGP to acquire a v2, most of the models with collisional processes results in a c quark v2 >0, without assuming the the c quarks thermalise

Ok, we can rephrase

1551: non-zero -> positive

Ok

1553: were already providing -> also provide

Ok

1558: same comment as above about thermalisation

Zhuang model refers to charm thermalization. Nevertheless we can be more general and not specify this detail

1559: it is not clear by which mechanisms primordial Jpsi acquire a v2 (ie a path length dependent suppression)

We now write "Furthermore, primordial \jpsi might acquire a \vtwo induced by a path-length dependent suppression"

1565: dependence on centrality.

Ok

1565-67: this conclusions, based on Jpsi v2 at RHIC, seems too strong: in fig 40, the significance of lowest-pT STAR point being larger than 0 seems quite similar to that of the second ALICE point

Ok, I'll smooth the sentence writing "..results are consistent with zero for pT>2GeV/c albeit with large uncertainties, while a hint for a positive v2 might be visible in the lowest pt bin"

1568: as a function of the..

Ok

1569: non-zero -> positive

ok

1577: maybe rm “in a deconfined medium”, it is not really needed to make energy loss path-length dependent

Ok

1581: 39 is the lowest energy for Jpsi data, but RHIC went much lower than that; maybe specify, because this first sentence is not yet focusing on Jpsi

Ok

1583: from -> in

Ok

1588: x in italics

Ok

1603: observations -> observation

Ok

1622: yet sensitive -> precise

Ok

footnote 9: add reference to ALICE preliminary measurement

Ok

1633: "a little bit” -> colloquial

Ok

1634: “bottomonia are much more sensitive to the recombination of two bottom quarks, originating from open bottom states” -> not clear what is meant here, does this refer to the recombination of a b a bbar that are produced in the same hard scattering? why is this more relevant for b than for c?

see also Raphael's comment. Removed this sentence. To clarify, it's not about recombination of b-bbar from the same hard scattering. It's just the open to closed HF ratio that's larger for bottom than for charm.

1639: rates -> cross sections; rm “still”

Ok

1644: 0.1 -> 0.10 ?

Ok

1653: by -> be

Ok

1654: period after eta/s

Ok

1665: remove “a” before TAMU

Ok

fig 43,44,45,46: add references in the captions

Ok

1700: will be shown in Fig and discussed in Sections -> is discussed in Section

Ok

1701: cause*d*

Ok

1706-1707: replace Jpsi with “quarkonium”

Ok

1715: maybe specify that these x ranges are calculated with LO kinematics using the formulas given in the CNM chapter

We already refer to the CNM chapter few lines above...maybe it's not needed to mention it again here

Section 3.4.2: The first part of this section (describing the production process and initial and final state effects) would fit much better at the beginning of the chapter (maybe at the beginning of the theory overview?). The part with the data (maybe from 1757) could stay here at the end of the chapter.

Hmm, would this be a major restructuring? Maybe now that we refer to this section already as part of the RAA definition, we don't have to move it to the introduction? For the moment let's keep the text as it is...

1771: non-photonic single electrons -> heavy-flavour decay electrons

Ok

1782: double dot after “Fig 48”

Ok

Fig 48: add refs in caption

Ok

1797: non-zero -> positive

Ok

1824: this outlook sentence is focused on LHC Run-II. Maybe it would be better to extend its scope to

future RHIC measurements and to LHC-Run-III? this would allow also a better connection with the upgrade chapter

run-3: ITS+TPC upgrade will improve prompt and non prompt JPsi @ mid-y. Let's wait to see the introduction of the upgrade chapter