Responses to GPC, April 2014


1. General: with the new text (in red) there's no a wild mix
of Au in roman and italic in normal text and in super/sub-scripts. Since Au is a chemical symbol I would put it all in roman

I fixed the remaining instances of italicized "Au"s in the text. 
2. Page 3, line 30, Sentence starting "Additionally ...".

This sentence doesn't say a lot and as I already mentioned that
I do not think the feed-down pattern is any more complex
than that in the charmomium sector. I attached a schematic
diagram. Replace Y with Psi and chi_b with chi_c and h_b with h_c
and that's it.

Why not simply saying here that the amount of feed-down into
the Y(states) is not measured at RHIC energies and then give
numbers of the next closest energy (which is Tevatron I guess).

We've changed the discussion of feed down in the introduction. We added a reference to the Tevatron results. We also discussed the direct fraction and its implication for the interpretation of the 1S results.

3. Fig 1,: I already mentioned that I suggest to turn this
into a table. The plot doesn't really provide any new insight.


4. Page 9, line 13.
"*" -> "\times" or just leave it out

Changed to \times. It helps distinguish the (1S) as an argument and the next set of parens as a mathematical expression.

5. Page 11, Line 18.

I wonder if one should add one sentence mentioning the Y suppression
in high multiplicity pp events seen by CMS. Fits in the context.

I would argue it's a little ambiguous whether we should do this. If we were citing LHC results, I think this would be prudent. However, we have yet to see evidence of Upsilon suppression (or J/Psi suppression) in pp collisions at RHIC energies.

6. Page 11, line 50.

Delete "However".


7. Fig. 6. The font size of the legend is a bit on the small side.

There's enough room to make it a tic bigger.

I've tried to squeeze a larger font in there. Thoughts?

8. Table II.
Can we really say that d-Au is 0-100%? That would be zero bias.
Wasn't there a min-bias mixed with the Y trigger. To my knowledge
we never quoted anything above 80/90%. What about simply saying
min. bias instead of 0-100%.



P3 L30 -- remove "complex" (it is an unnecessary adjective here)


P4 (new) Fig.1 and red text lines 50-51, 65-69:  The efficiencies are
about the same for the 30-60, 10-30 and 0-60 at each rapidity bin.
This information probably should be in the text since HF reco. eff.
are useful to know by others in the business. I recommend putting
this information in the text in place of the above Figure 1 and lines, e.g.

   "The $\Upsilon$ acceptance $\times$ efficiency for three centrality
bins (30-60%, 10-30%, 0-60%) are XX, XX and XX for respective
rapidity bins |y|<0.5, |y|<1.0 and 0.5<|y|<1.0. For the 0-10% centrality
the corresponding total efficiencies are reduced by approximately XX%."

We removed the figure and made it a table instead.

Please check that the various uses of "total efficiency", "reconstruction
efficiency", "acceptance times efficiency" etc are used consistently and
avoid extra such terms if possible.

P5 Fig2b -- The legend "p+p x <Ncoll>" is misleading and may be what ref.2
is asking about. The grey band in 2b is not simply the red curve in 2a
multiplied by a constant (Ncoll).  There are resolution effects as discussed
on P6. The caption should say, "The grey band shows the expected yield if
RDAu = 1 including resolution effects (see text)."

I added your wording in the caption.

P5 L8 -- Are b-bbar pair backgrounds NPE from open HF meson
decays (B-mesons)?  Just curious.

You got it.

P5 Tabel I -- I assume momentum resolution effects are included in
the line shape entries.  Ref.1 is concerned about p-resolution and in
addition to the response, this table caption should note that p-resol.
is included in the line shape errors if that is true.

It is included and is now noted in the caption.

P5 L17-28 -- I did not find any discussion in the paper about the
use of max likelihood fitting. This turned out to be a big deal and
will be discussed in the response. This parag. would be the place
to say, briefly how the fits were done.

Good idea. The following was added: "The fit is permormed simultaneously to the like-sign and unlike-sign spectra using a maximum-likelihood method."

P6 L6 -- "miscalibration" sounds scary. Can this issue be explained
in the text, and more so in the responses, so that neither referee nor
the readers are put-off by the statement and dismiss the paper's results?

We now refer to it as a misalignment as well as quantifying the effect it had on the line shape.

P6 L26 -- I recommend against arguing with the referee over simple
wording changes that have equivalent meanings.  Is there a subtlety
here that I don't recognize?

We changed the wording and Manuel played diplomat. I never intended this to be the real response; it was more for the GPC. It's now fixed.

P6 Fig.3a -- The referee is asking that the legend "Upsilon -> e+e-"
say explicitly "Upsilon(1S+2S+3S) -> e+e-".  But also change to l+l-.
She/he wants the states listed explicitly.


P8 Fig 5c caption - same issue as above with the grey band. The
last sentence in the caption should read: "The grey band ... number
of binary collisions including resolution effects (see text)."


P9 L8 -- Referring to Fig. 6c, the 10-30% RAA is consistent with unity
also. This sentence should say, "..consistent with unity in peripheral
to more-central Au+Au collisions..."  BTW, "events" is jargon which we
all use, but I think it is better to say "collisions" here and throughout
the paper unless we are specifically discussing a triggered event in

Fair enough. I've updated the text to reflect that the RAA in 10-30% is consistent with unity as well.

Also, I changed event to collision where approriate in the text. Those changes are unhighlighted.

P10 L8 -- "With two possibilities.." implies that CNM and QGP are

the only possibilities for reducing yields.  There is at least the
possibility of modified fragmentation of HF quarks in a
dense system.  I recommend saying "Considering two possible
sources..."  which more accurately reflects what was done; we
considered these two effects and not others.

Good point! We fixed it. Thanks.

P10 L37-39 -- Isn't the "QGP only" preferred in Fig. 8b? Why
mention the other as "consistent" and not also mention the

one that fits best?

One thing to note here is that the "QGP only" model also includes the "no suppression" model in dAu. Seeing as no suppression is disfavored by the dAu study, we can argue that "QGP only" is not really favored. We made this more clear in the text.


- p3, l31-l32: I don't like the formulation too much, maybe "...there exists a feed-down pattern in the bottomonium sector, and thus melting of the higher states affects also the measured yield of the lower states."

We've changed this section. See responses to Thomas' comments for further info.

- fig 1 take a lot of space for basically not much information, maybe a table would be sufficient?

- p6, l6: TPC miscalibration sounds scary, maybe non-perfect TPC calibration?

We now refer to it as a misalignment as well as quantifying the effect it had on the line shape.

- p11, l5: I'm not too happy with the A^alpha discussion: after all it is a just a fit to the data. Have you used for this statement the alpha value from our own measurement, e.g. fig 4 bottom or the integrated one from fig 4 top? The integrated one is significantly above the midrapidity one, also for E772
Fair point. We discussed what we need to in the previous paragraph and we've removed this sentence.