Hi, Shusu Thanks for the suggestions and comments. The PAs have updated the paper draft accordingly: http://www.star.bnl.gov/protected/bulkcorr/rexwg/flow/Parity/BES/PRL/LPV_BES03.pdf Please see the detailed replies inline. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shi Shusu" > To: bulkcorr-hn@sun.star.bnl.gov > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 4:40:01 PM > Subject: Re: Paper draft: Fluctuations of charge separation perpendicular to the reaction plane and local parity > violation in Au+Au > > Hi Gang, > > Please find my comments on your nice paper draft: > > 1) I think it would be better to discuss the systematic analysis > before we show the results. > To be more specific, it seems more reasonable to show Fig. 4 before > Fig. 2 and 3. REPLY: The structure of the current draft has its own logic. The similar paper structure was used in, for example, PRL 103, 251601(2009). The PAs opt to put the systematic discussion (Fig 4) after the major results (Fig 2 and 3) are shown, otherwise an early appearance of Fig 4 will be baseless. >The discussion on Fig. 4 looks good, but we need a paragraph to >summarize all the systematic sources and the corresponding numbers. REPLY: In the new version, on page 3, the 2nd paragraph on the right column starts with the discussions on the systematic uncertainties. We have included now the systematic sources and the corresponding numbers. >Also I would be good to explain the asymmetry systematic > errors in Fig 2 and 3. REPLY: We have modified the caption: "The unidirectional systematic errors (filled boxes) reflect the extra conditions of $\Delta p_T > 0.15$ GeV/$c$ and $\Delta\eta>0.15$ to suppress HBT+Coulomb effects (to be discussed later)." > 2) Introduction: I don't understand 'a finite axial chemical > potential'. Could you elaborate a little bit? REPLY: This term is used for description of quark matter with non-zero net chirality at the effective lagrangian level. We have added a reference for this term in the paper draft, PRD 85, 054013. > 3) About the NEVSIM study in the Fig. 2. We observed the results for > 62 and 39 are between OC and SC, > but the results for lowers beam energies are all below both OC and SC. > Do we know the reason? Does this mean > NEVSIM underestimates the background of momentum conservation and > elliptic flow? I would > suggest we discuss this in the text. REPLY: The purpose of employing MEVSIM was to qualitatively describe the trend of the charge-independent background. And the MEVSIM results have well served this purpose: "which qualitatively describe the beam-energy dependency of the charge-independent background." A further fine-tuning of this simple model will cause too much effort without much gain. The theorists may pick up this topic after we publish our data and do a better job. > 4) Fig. 3 lower panel: the systematic error for 11.5 GeV is really > very small or is missed here? REPLY: The systematic error of this type happens to cancel to a large extent for OS-SS at 11.5 GeV. > 'gammaOS =E2=88=92 gammaSS remains positive for all centralities down > to the beam energy =E2=88=BC 19.6 GeV' > 'gammaOS =E2=88=92 gammaSS demonstrates a weak energy dependency above > 19.6 GeV and a falling below it' > To me, the week energy dependency is valid above 11.5 (Fig. 3). REPLY: We have updated Fig 3 with more centrality ranges. For all the centralities shown, 19.6 GeV always seems to be the highest point. >Also, what is the reason that we observed > decreasing trend from 200 GeV to 2.76 GeV. REPLY: The external magnetic field decreases faster for larger sqrt{s_{NN}} (see, for example, arXiv: 0908.2522) and CME is dominated by the integral of magnetic field over time. Thus the behavior of integral of magnetic field can cause decrease of (OS-SS). And the so-called "dilution effect" is larger for higher energies where the number of P-odd domains is proportional to multiplicity. > Also, based on Fig. 2, the energy dependence of difference seems very > clear, it almost disappears for 11.5 and 7.7 GeV. > But in Fig. 3, we see very comparable difference for 11.5 - 62 GeV. > Are we cheated by our eyes? REPLY: There could be some illusion due to the different vertical scales in Fig 2, though this has been mentioned in the captoin. Now we have more centralities in Fig 3 to help better view the difference. > thanks, > > Shusu > On Oct 14, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Gang Wang wrote: > > > Hi, all > > > > The paper draft of > > > > Fluctuations of charge separation perpendicular to the reaction plane > > and local parity violation in Au+Au collisions at =C3=A2=CB=86=C5=A1sNN > =3D 7.7 - 62.4 > > GeV > > > > has been posted to the PWG for 3 weeks. > > Now you can find the analysis note also linked > > to the paper's web page: > > > > > https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/blog/rexwg/2013/sep/24/fluctuations-charg > e-separation-perpendicular-reaction-plane-and-local-parity-violation-auau- > collisions-%E2%88%9As > > > > Although there are still some systematic checks > > that need to be added, it contains the major parts. > > > > Please take a look. > > > > Thanks > > > > Gang