> Hi Nu, Zhangbu, 
>  
> Here are Yale's comments on the LPV BES paper. 
>  
> Abstract vs text: In the abstract it states that the potential signal vanishes around 7.7 GeV while in the text (page 5 line 7) it mentions the signal vanishing at ~19.6 GeV. Maybe one could change the abstract to say vanishing by 7.7 GeV? 
>  

PAs: We changed the abstract to "vanish by 7.7 GeV".

> Page 3 Column 1 line 6: provide --> provides 
>  
PAs: Done.

> Page 3 Column 1: at LHC --> at the LHC 
>  
PAs: Done.

> Page 3 Column 1 second paragraph: "strong magnetic field"-->maybe "magnetic field with a strength that peaks around" 
>  
PAs: Done.

> Page 3 Column 1 4th paragraph: reports the measurements --> reports measurements 
>  
PAs: Done.

> Fig2: Given you state the that os-ss is key why is this not plotted in the figure as a third set of data points? 

PAs: We have to show the correlators at various energies 
separately because this is novel and important information. 
One can show the additional picture for (os-ss) in the future 
long paper. But for a short PRL paper we describe and show the 
Fig.4 for some new observables, which allows to control 
(and decrease) the possible contributions of background
effects with better way than that the simple difference (os-ss).
Also, (OS-SS) results can be found in Fig 13 of the technical note:
https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/system/files/Analysis%20note%20for%20LPV%40BES.pdf

> Why is there only one curve for MEVSIM? 

PAs: Since there's no charge separation effect in MEVSIM,
we showed the charge independent results.
We now add some explanations in the caption.

> In the legend for MEVSIM suggest you shrink the height of the box to better reflect what is actually drawn. 

PAs: MEVSIM were shown with grey bands, which sometimes
have small widthes, small statistical errors.

> Page 4 column 2:  the sentence: "Momentum conservation forces 
all produced particles, regardless of charge, to separate from 
> each other, while elliptic flow works in the opposite sense.", 
maybe is not a great description of elliptic flow to 
> give to a general audience. 
>  
PAs: Owing to the length limit, we modified it to 
"while elliptic flow, a collective motion, works in the opposite sense."
>  
> Page 4 column 2 second to last line : with the implementation --> with an implementation 
>  
PAs: Done.

> Page 5 column 2: owing to the finite -->owing to a finite 
>  
PAs: Done.

> Page 5 column 2: The line for kappa=1(H_ss-H_os)... --> The (H_ss - H_os) curve for kappa - 1... 
>  
PAs: Done.

> We felt that "H" may be a bit oversold as containing just the CME terms.  This is the same as (gamma - v2 * delta) that 
> Scott Pratt suggested long ago and then he later noted several ways in which that separation wouldn't contain all the 
> background from, for example, his blast wave + pair production.  Maybe the discussion of "kappa" is sufficient to convey 
> the flavor of those nuances  but to us it reads a bit too strong for the true "murkiness" of this separation. 
>  
PAs: The definition Eq(5) in the paper somewhat differs 
from the S. Pratt suggestion, especially with kappa.
Moreover, according to the Eqs. (3), (4), H is the symbol 
for theoretical description of CME contribution namely. 
Thus it seems the H contains only CME contribution by its definition. We do put the caveat that kappa may deviate from unity,
and future determination of kappa will better conclude
the story based on our data presented here.
We have some more discussion of H in Sec 3.6 of the technical note.

> Page 5 sys error discussion. We were a bit confused about where the boxes start. This is where the data points are plotted correct? 
> Perhaps this could be clarified in the text. 
>  
PAs: it was discussed in the text:
"The boxes start from the central
values with default conditions and end with the results
with the above extra conditions.."
Now we also add "(starting from the central values)" to the caption.

> Page 6 ...and then vanishes at lower energies --> and then falls steeply at lower energies 
>  
PAs: Done.

> Page 6: The sentence starting "This trend may be consistent... should be re-written so it does not sat local parity violation 
> twice in such a short space. 
>  
PAs: Modified:
"...because there should be a smaller probability
for the CME at lower energies..."

> Page 6: statistics by ten times -> statistics by a factor ten 
>  
PAs: Done.