CODES CHECKED FOR THE QA PURSPOSES:

offline/paper/psn0620/DataAnalysis/StRoot/ReadPico/ReadPico.cxx / .h
offline/paper/psn0620/DataAnalysis/fourgaus_pip.C
offline/paper/psn0620/DataAnalysis/fithisto_lowpt_pi.C

/gpfs01/star/pwg/iraklic/GPC/offline/paper/psn0620/EffCorr/Divide.C
/gpfs01/star/pwg/iraklic/GPC/offline/paper/psn0620/EffCorr/eff.C

Codes were checked. They compile, run, and produce expected results. The codes were also cross-checked with the information provided in the papaer (cuts, results, etc.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

General Note: The code compiles and runs as described in the instruction README files. The results look reasonable.

Detailed Notes/Questions/Comments:

1. The code that is committed to the CVS only applies to the energies other than 7.7 (README clearly indicates that it is for AuAu 27 GeV), because the "vzcut" used is 30 cm. And as mentioned in the paper/note the cut is 50 cms for the 7.7 GeV case.
   • PAs added following to the README file to address the above : "Please note that the code submitted here can be used as such to obtain raw yields for each energy e.g. 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV, except for 7.7 GeV. To obtain raw yields for 7.7 GeV, please change the vertex-z range from 30cm to 50cm i.e. at line 128 in "ReadPico.cxx", change "vzcut = 30.0" to "vzcut=50.0"
2. There are dummy scopes after "track cuts" in the code. Is it meant as a dummy scope or is a condition missing? I suspect nothing is missing, but still would like to confirm.
   • PAs confirmed that the scopes are dummy and no condition is missing.
3. The paper, and the note as well, mention requirement cuts that do not correspond to what is in the code. For example paper says for the requirement : ndE/dx > 15, whereas the condition in the code is if (nHitsDeDx < 15) continue; This corresponds to ndE/dx >= 15, same goes for all the requirements. I understand that for the variables that are "double" precision this has a negligible effect, but for the variable such as NFit and nHitsDeDx (where the precision is "integer") the effects is non-negligible. Please correct the paper (sinse results I presume correspond to the code that has been committed to the CVS). Actually this needs to be corrected in the Tables, because the text correctly says "at least 25 points".
   • PAs have changed the table for the selection criteria adding >= instead of > acordingly.
4. ...

To be continued...

Comments about the paper: 

1. (Same as in note) Figure 6 : There is no a) and b) marked. What is the extra/last data point with nHitsFit = 46 (should't max me 45)?

   • PA answer : For primary tracks, the extra point comes from the vertex. In
     embedding, the vertex is removed from the nfitpoints. We have done
     this for data also to make comparison. Plot is updated in the draft.

2.