> Hi Gang and Vitaly, > > The paper draft and analysis notes are nicely written, please find below > my comments and questions. > > *********************** > > For the paper draft > > 1. Title, "reaction plane and local parity violation", I would suggest > change it to "reaction plane and possible local parity violation" since > there exists other interpretations of the charge separation signals. REPLY: Now we have added "possible" in the title. > 2. Page 1, last paragraph on the left, " 8M events at 62.4 GeV, (2005), > 23M at 39 GeV (2010)", why we only have 23M events for 39GeV? The STAR > run log indicates that we have about 260M mini-bias trigger recorded > (the total useful events should be less than that). The full dataset > will definitely reduce statistical uncertainties, especially in > peripheral collisions. REPLY: The 23M for 39 GeV comes from the cut on the BBC coincident rate (<10000) to suppress possible luminosity effect. Now we put 100M events for 39 GeV, and studied the effect of this cut in the technical note. So now the statistical errors are smaller in the 60-80% collisions. > 3. Figure 2, for some energies, you have dash lines connecting data > points but some energies don't. Please be consistent. REPLY: The figure has been modified accordingly. > 4. Figure 3, upper panel, I need to apologize if you have explain this > before, but it seems both same-sign and opp-sign results for 19.6GeV are > systematically lower than the general trend (or you can say the 27GeV > points are higher, by eyes). Do we understand the reason? REPLY: The PAs feel more like that 27 GeV points are a little off the trend, rather than 19 GeV. > During last collaboration meeting, Paul reported that he noticed > something interesting with 27GeV data, > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/sorensen_bulkcorr_10_14_13.pdf > Slide 33 and 39. Not sure if this would also affect your results but > might worth keep in mind. REPLY: We have checked several systematics, and are still working on it. The 27 GeV points up to now seem to be stable. If finally they stay that way, then that's the best we can do with the current data quality and analysis techniques. So we plan to publish the data, without over-interpreting the 27 GeV points. > 5. Page 3, systematical uncertainties, I see you have listed a few > sources of systematical uncertainties. Could you also provide the final > uncertainty with these effects been combined? REPLY: Done. > 6. Page 3, systematical uncertainties, "Another type of systematicsa€|" > The removal of HBT effects is important and supports the observed > signal. My question is about the definition, can we call this > "systematical uncertainty"? To me, it is more like procedure to remove > known physics contributions, for example, adding eta gap in v2 analysis. > Maybe others can also comment on this. REPLY: Sometimes systematics due to analysis conditions and physics are entangled. Now we modified the sentence to "Another type of uncertainties, due to known physics, will be discussed below." > 7. Page 4, reference 11, the author is V.A. Okorokov, and please use > journal reference. REPLY: Corrected. > 8. Page 4, reference 13, please use journal reference. REPLY: Done. > **************************** > > For the analysis notes > > 1. Figure 12, Compare to the Fig.3 in the paper draft, there are > slightly differences in 200GeV data points. I assume the 200GeV data are > from the published LPV paper, could you double-check and be consistent? REPLY: The 200 GeV points were re-analyzed for run7 data. The little difference is from the tracking efficiency correction. Now we use the same figure in the paper draft and technical note. > 2. Systematic, Since most BES data are from Run10/11, have you > considered to analyze the 62.4GeV data from Run10? This would serve as a > good systematic check (similar run conditions as other energies) and > also increase the statistics (only 8M from Run4, while 168M from Run10) REPLY: Previous we have put a lot of effort into the run10 62.4 GeV data. Due to the TPC hole, it's very hard to apply the analysis correction properly, and the gain turns out to be not worthy of the effort. So we gave up run10 62.4 and 200 GeV data for this analysis, though for other analyses (like v1) they are still usable. > 3. Systematic, In the paper, we mentioned the systematics from analysis > cuts are 3%, could you add more contents in the analysis notes to cover > this part? For example, how this value is calculated, what kind of cuts > you have changed and what are the results. REPLY: More details are added to the technical note. Still a little more will be added, but the major parts are there. The PAs wish to wrap up the rest during the GPC process. Most likely, the text in the paper won't be changed by this. > ********************* > > For the paper proposal webpage > > 1. Please also list all the related talks/presentations as supporting > materials. REPLY: Done.