On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Gang Wang wrote: Hi, Sergei Thanks for the comments/suggestions. I've made a new draft (not completed though): http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/rexwg/flow/Parity/BES/PRL/ver09/LPV_BES09.pdf Most of the easy fixes have been applied. But I do have a few questions and replies below inline. Gang Wang Department of Physics & Astronomy UCLA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sergei Voloshin" To: "Gang Wang" Cc: "Bedanga Mohanty" , "Jim Thomas" , "Nu Xu" , "Daniel Cebra" , "Shusu Shi" , "Hongwei Ke" , "Xin Dong" , "Vitaly Okorokov" , "Hui Wang" Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:44:51 PM Subject: Re: Re: Next tasks: God Parent Committee: Fluctuations of charge separation perpendicular to the reaction plane and possible local parity violation in Au+Au collisions at sNN = 7.7 - 62.4 GeV Hi Gang, I have my comments for the version 8.0 below. Regards, Sergei page, column, paragraph, line 1,left,2,2, - "mostly" is out of place. probbaly simplest to remove it. PA: Done! 1,left,2, 5 "interplay" does not sound right here. The entire sentence doe snot read smoothly - I suggest to reword. PA:I've rewrite the first two paragraphs. 1,left,3,last 2 ==> ... and correct the measurement for the finite reaction plane resolution. PA:Done! 1,right,1, 3first lines It does not read -rephrase. "Events selected with minimum bias trigger have been sorted into centrality bins ... PA:Done! 2,left, 5th line after eq 1 requires--> implies next line remove "should" next line remove "However" PA: Done! 2,right, 2, in the middle "starting from peripheral collisions -- does not read, rephrase Really, I would recommend to rewrite the entire description of the momentum conservation effect. It is rather confusing. Also, I am not sure we did discuss it that much in [12]. In [12] the rise of correlations at small multiplicity was related to the "non-flow" effects - jets in particular - that contribute to 3-particle correlator. PA: Ref[12] is the paper by Dhevan and me: http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/rexwg/flow/Parity/MSC_paper/ver11/paper_ver11.pdf The discussion of Fig 7 (end of page 7) involves momentum conservation. Back-to-back jets can be considered as a special case of momentum conservation. The effect was studied with MEVSIM, where momentum conservation alone always pushes both OS and SS up, and v2 does the opposite way. OK. I confused the reference. What I have written about "non-flow" was studied with HIJING for our first 2 papers. 3,left, 3rd line from bottom not clear. What is "not close to zero". Be more specific. PA: For example in central collisions, the difference between OS and SS is very close to zero. In those cases, it's not very meaningful to talk about the relative uncertainty. I've modified the sentence. 3,right,1 What is exactly shown with "inidirectional boxes"? (What correspond to the marker point and what to the end of the error-bar?). Also, it is difficult to imagine "unidirectional box" ;-) PA: Modified. Please see if the caption of Fig 2 is clear now. 3,right,2, beginning What is "less straight-forward"? I would rephrase ==> "Additional information about .... PA:Done. 3,right,2, 8 Split this sentence into two. Try to clarify it better. next line what is "suppressed"? Rephrase -->>"taking this into account one can express gamma and delta in teh following form, where the unknowm parameter kappa, as argued in [28], is of the order of unity. PA: Done 3,right, 2nd line after eq 4 "Ideally" --> In teh discussion [28] kappa=1 was used, but due to the theoretical .... PA: Done. last sentence before "in summary" does not read well. Try to rephrase. PA: Modified. ref. [24]/ How many authors are there? We should be consistent in how many names we "provide". PA: I don't get this question. Could you explain the question a little? What I meant was the following. If we mention all three (4, or whatever number) names in one reference, we have to keep the same rule everywhere. I guess that the number of authors of [24] is also rather limited. Then we can give all the names.