Reply to PRD referee

Version after reply to PRD referee

Current Version (after changes based on collaboration release)



Reply to review from collaboration.

paper home page

Old version: first release to Collaboration 
paper_v38LN.pdf (9-2-2020)

zipped figures

Changes in Author list to match today's list. (from unix diff )

paper_v36LN (7-22-2020)

Based on Ken's comments
paper_v35LN (7-2-2020)
Minor changes:

P_T->p_T in figures
Refer to powers P_L and P_H in Figure 9
remove acknowledgments section number
Move all references to last pages.

paper_v34LN (6-24-2020)
Based on comments from Oleg

paper_v33LN (6-13-2020)

Based on Comments from Maowu

paper_v32LN (6-7-2020)
Same as v30 but
1) Figures tweeked
2) AuthorList and Acknowledgments included
paper_v31LN (6-3-2020)
Olegs Comments
Carl's comments and response

paper_v30LN (5-13-2020)


changes based on Oleg comments
paper_v28LN (4-15-2020)


changes based on  Oleg5-13.txt
paper_v27LN (4-8-2020)

paper_v26LN (3-25-2020)

Comments From Matt

Oleg comments:

Comments: (page and line numbers refer to V25LN)
Do we really need TSSA as an abbreviation? The physics observable is A_N.    ????
- page 4 -
ll.59ff: All the words are there, but I still think that the relevant
information about RHIC is partially hidden from the reader. The RHIC
beams are bunched with up to 120 bunches in each ring, typically leaving
abort gaps after 111 bunches. Bunch spacing is 106 ns and the transverse
polarization fill pattern is chosen from a predefined pattern (either
alternating the polarization direction from bunch to bunch or pairs of
bunches). This removes any time dependence of the polarization in the
calculation of the asymmetries.
Maybe we want to give the mean polarization values here already. done
haven't double checked them later in the analysis section right now.) 
ll.74f: "presenting different transverse square front surfaces" is not
necessary. The sizes are given in the caption to Fig. 1.
ll.78ff: I would move the BBC discussion before the FMS (since it is
continued afterwards). partly done
- page 5 -
ll.5ff: "nuclear collisions" -> "heavy-ion collisions" I'm also not sure?????????
about the rest of this paragraph. This is discussed near the end of the
section (on page 6), where it is better placed.  done
ll.10f: What are "collisions not arising from nuclear collisions?" This
is beam background. Maybe most readers will be well aware of this, but I
think it would be helpful to relate the "energy deposited in the BBC"
with the particle multiplicity, since these are MIPs. done
ll.12f: (spelling) Molière radius. If you need to explain what that
means, you should include "electromagnetic shower" here (I don't think
it is necessary, though).done
ll.20ff: "incident normal to the front face" -> Since you say "about
80%," maybe just call these photons from the collisions in STAR. The
angles are small and the statement will still be true.done
ll.35ff: "At larger energies..." -> This sentence is repeated in ll.
90ff (where it fits much better).done
ll.40ff: I find this paragraph distracting. Readers should know about
hadronic interactions and all they need here is the nuclear interaction
length of the FMS cells. Also, the trigger is only discussed in the
following paragraph, so this part is premature. (This needs to be discussed)
l.68: I don't think it needs to be mentioned that the highest pT-trigger
is not prescaled. (why not?)
ll.74ff: How are cone clusters found? I think this deserves a little
more details, since it can affect the selection of photon pairs. ;done
l76: "event photons" -> "photon candidates" done
l.77: "cone cluster photon average momentum" -> "cone cluster (total)
momentum" (The magnitude doesn't matter, only the direction.) done
ll.82ff: This sentence should include something like "below 40 GeV" done
ll.88f: "As mentioned above..." Change according to previous comment on
l.114: "in the RHIC abort gap collisions" -> "in the abort gaps" (single
beam background, the word collisions implies a collision between the two

paper_v26LN (3-25-2020)
paper_v25LN (2-23-2020)

Modifications in response to Oleg

paper_v24LN (2-11-2020)

Rewrite Historical (longitudinal) section


paper_v23LN (10-24-2019)

Cleanup based on comments

paper_v20LN (10-3-2019)

Changes from comments by working group members

paper_v18LN (8-14-2019)

  • more changes from Stephen

paper_v17LN (8-12-2019)

  • Stephen's notes included.
  • Changes  based on conveners review

The PWG conveners reviewed the Spin/ColdQCD paper proposal. The PWGC panel has found that the physics interesting and analysis mature, and recommended the paper proposal to move forward.  The targeted journal was also discussed. The discussion of the underlying mechanism that drives the observed transverse single spin asymmetry belongs to PRD, while the investigation of the A-dependence is more suitable for PRC. The conveners expressed their recommendations for PRD. The following comments/suggestions were also provided to the PAs on the proposed figures

Figure 7: add systematic uncertainty (done)

Figure 8:  adjust the y-axis scale so that it includes -1/3. (done)

Figure 8: If showing only the stat. uncertainty in the figure, add a statement about the size of the systematic uncertainty (that it is very small) in the caption (done)

Figure 9-11: consider computing and showing the A-dependence for these results in the paper  (see new fig 12)


paper_v16LN (7-19-2019)

  • Figure 9 divided into 3 figures, one for each collision type.

paper_v15LN (7-18-2019)

  • New versions of Fig3 and Fig 9 with another choice in sys error color/patterns to combat clutter.

Link to Branden's paper proposal.


paper_v14LN (7-6-2019)

  • New description of Type 1 and Type 2 analysis to obtain power P and changes in Fig. 6

Added details in use of point class https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/LinksToAnAnal.pdf

Added note on Inclusive cross section vs Cluster based leading pair selection

We are looking at correlated errors in fig 6 and 8 of paper.
Carl suggested fitting each point to power low rather than fitting the pt averaged ratio AN(pA)/AN(pp) vs A.
Implementation of his approach is described here with full set of fits included here.

paper_v13LN (7-1-2019)

  • Figs 4,5 -  insert showing all three constant fits to points in low pt.,  high pt and all pt included
  • Fig 9 - Used Oleg's suggestion to reduce clutter. Only show systematic error box for pp and state that it is similar for pAl and pAu

paper_v12LN (6-24-2019)

  • Fix typos and reorganize in definition of K
    • Express in terms of ratios only
    • Remove recursive Ref to A_N
  • Many other minor changes

paper_v11LN (6-21-2019)


paper_v10LN   (6-20-2019)

  • Reorganized introduction
  • small fixes

 version paper_v8

  • with Stephen's edit
  • reaction to Carl' comments


 version  paper_v7 

  • Modified title and abstract
  • large figures
  • separate section on selection of events 

Link to HTML Point table for Figure 3 points in paper    

Current version  paper_v6 

  • New binning in XF and pT with bin widths increasing with XF
  • New systematic Errors (assume AN for background under mass peak is 1/3 pm 1/3 of AN of signal)

Link to HTML Point table for Figure 3 points in paper    

version _v5
Results sheet for pi0 inclusive AN.
Link to HTML Point table for Figure 3 points in paper