---
# System prepended metadata

title: Note for CONF v1.1

---

# Note for CONF v1.1

### Ralf
+ you should be able to send the conference paper draft to the collaboration after one or two more iterations.

+ As I also mentioned yesterday, I still think that using a **similar thrust axis direction in the event mixing would be better than using any thrust axis direction**. I understand that this makes the event mixing a little more difficult from a bookkeeping standpoint, but in the end I think you have to similar steps anyway already when using the different multiplicity classes. So please revisit this and add it into the updated Belle note. 
    > I think this depends on what we want to remove in the correlation function -- the background correlation function is meant to represent those uncorrelated particle pairs, that is, they are only related with the overall eta and phi distribution, which comes from detector acceptance. They are not doing with any physics of the particle pairs, so we want to remove them, but we do not want remove the correlation arising from event thrust topologies, in particular we do not use thrust value or thrust axis direction class here. Of course a study in different thrust classes will be interesting, but in our current case we only study it in multiplicity classes, so we still think to remain the original method. Also, finding the mixed event with similar thrust axis requires extra efforts, for example, we should optimize what is the criterion for ``similar thrust axis''. I'm afraid that this can not be finished before ICHEP. I understand your point is that whether the re-weighting method would be valid, but I think, after all, we follow the method totally the same as that in a published paper (ALEPH e+e- one), this should be acceptable. I suggest that we go with this mixing method for ICHEP, after that if it is still questionable about this method, then we can provide more study on this.

For the conference paper draft, I think most is well described. 
The only substantial changes are:
1. a description of the disappearance of the near-side peak in the thrust method 
2. the consistent removal of the words jets when you have not really measured jets.
    > I understand that in HI physics many expressions may be used more sloppily than in other field of high energy QCD, but you need to be precise and talk about **particle or hadron yields**.

#### Detailed comments about the conference paper draft:

+ [x] Title: correlations ,.. Belle

#### Abstract:
+ [x] line 218f: You very suddenly switch from e+e- and Belle to the ridge story before you come back to the actual measurements you report here. Maybe you should start with the ridge discussion and then move to e+e- and then end the abstract with the actual measurements you report here (ie move everything before line 218 to after 224.
    > Try to change the order, but I know that we originally want to mark the main idea of "Meas. @ e+e- Belle exp"
+ [x] 222: accounts --> possible explanations of the ....
+ [x] 225:  hadron structure in the initial state
+ [x] 228f: ...to the region of additional soft gluon emissions
+ [x] 229: reference frames, while the thrust axis analysis also lacks an 
intra-jet correlation.

#### Main text:
+ [x] 244 by initial state hadrons
+ [x] 252 collisions.
+ [x] 258 be --> provide new inputs
+ [x] 266 a data sample of 31.. was utilized in this analysis.
    > Overall 31.46 fb−1 data size is utilized in this analysis
+ [x] 273 in the event reconstruction.
+ [x] 279 (explain what the Belle MC includes)
+ [x] 285 only a sample size of  11.49 fb...
+ [x] 292 a single even
+ [x] 292 On the right-hand side
    > I don't know why need to make this change.
    > On the other hand, B(∆η,∆φ) denotes the background correlation distribution, counting the per-trigger-pairing-yield with a “mixed event”.
+ [x] 298 is the sae...
    > The mixed event in this work is a collection of tracks coming from ...
+ [x] 302 (explain fidelity lost) .... finite bin-size histograms
    > I kilil fidelity lost, maybe it is not very clear, but I just want refer to using ...
+ [x] 303 the bins-size effect
+ [x] 305 coordinate systems (or reference frames?)
    > We can decide the **terminology** a bit.
+ [x] 309ff (That sentence needs to be rewritten - I am not quite sure what you want to say here)
+ [x] 314ff (that is again very hard to digest, please rewrite)
+ [x] 319 soft gluon emissions  (not necessarily jets) .... apart from the leading quark-antiquark related di-jet like structure.
+ [x] 327 (remove jet) ...The particles in e+e- collisions ....
+ [x] 329 while lacking a sizeable near-side correlation.
+ [x] 330 looked up --> studied
+ [x] 355 reside in --> would be visible as a nonzero value (I guess).
    > "would be visible" -> is there better way to say?
+ [x] 356f consists --> are consistent...but deviate in the away-side region (again no jet)
+ [ ] 372ff (Here you need to specify why there is no near-side peak in the thrust axis method and at least mention that this has been consistent with various MC simulations at different cms energies.)
    > Do we want to put the study of different cms energies?


Please note that Thursday and Friday are holidays in Japan, so I might not get to your next version immediately.

### Will
#### abstract:
+ [x] 217: [add units "GeV"]
+ [x] 219: to as “ridge signal -->  to as the “ridge signal
+ [x] 220: collisions  which --> collisions,  which
+ [ ] 221-222: [as I mentioned previously, I believe that it is misleading to effectively say the ridge originates in the "hydrodynamic expansion", rather, maybe more like the expansion is the "vehicle" that expresses the initial density and spatial fluctuations that cause the ridge (e.g., see **"The Rise and Fall of the Ridge in Heavy Ion Collisions  P. Sorenson et al., Phys.Lett.B 705 (2011) 71-75, arXiv:1102.1403 [nucl-th]** ... is an older publication I know of and I think the ideas are still relevant for the HI view) ... so maybe say:] collisions, the -->  collisions, initial fluctuations followed by the [or smth like that ?]
    > I think the "hydrodynamics" is a widely-suspected causes to account for the anisotropies: 1003.0194
    > 
+ [x] 222: in e+e− --> in the e+e−
+ [x] 223: without complexity -->  without the complexities
+ [x] 223: introduced by hadron structure --> introduced by strongly interacting particles or hadron structure effects in the entrance channel [???]
    > I'm not quite sure what is **hadron sutrcture effects in the entrance channel**
    > - the complexities introduced by hadron structure in the initial state
    > - the complexities introduced by strongly interacting particles
    > - the complexities introduced by hadron structure effects in the entrance channel
+ [x] 224: of ridge signal. --> of a ridge signal
+ [x] 225: over full --> over the full
+ [x] 227: determined --> determining [don't change tense]
+ [x] 228: with both --> in either
+ [x] 229: analyses, lack of origin intra-jet correlation is seen under thrust --> analyses. Near side jet correlations appear to be absent in the thrust
    > - No significant ridge signal is observed with both coordinates analyses, while lack of origin intra-jet correlation is seen under thrust axis analysis
    > - Ralf: No significant ridge signal is observed in either reference frames, while the thrust axis analysis also lacks an intra-jet correlation.
    > - Will: No significant ridge signal is observed with both coordinates analyses. Near side jet correlations appear to be absent in the thrust axis analysis


#### Content
+ [x] 234: are well-established --> are a well-established
+ [x] 237: −ln tan (θ/2) and --> −ln tan (θ/2), and
+ [ ] 237: counterclockwise beam
    >  what?
+ [x] 238: (∆φ) has -->  (∆φ), has
+ [x] 240: initial nucleon spacial distributions in the ions --> initial density and spatial overlap distributions of the colliding ions
    > better check
+ [x] 244: hadronic collision system, -->  hadronic initiated collision systems,
+ [x] 244: by hadron --> by the hadrons
+ [x] 251: Recently, the experimental  studies are --> Recently, experimental studies have been
+ [x] 257: following previous analysis --> closely following the previous analysis
+ [x] 257: In addition, the --> In addition, it is suggested that the
    > Not sure whether this is necessary
+ [x] 258: can be new inputs to --> can be used as new inputs to
    > Ralf: can provide new inputs to...
+ [x] 263: comprised  of --> comprising
+ [x] 266: verall 31.46 fb−1 data size is --> Overall, 31.46 fb−1 of data is
+ [x] 268: [26] --> [26],
+ [x] 269: detector are --> detector, are
+ [x] 273: in --> at
+ [x] 274: within detector --> within the detector
+ [x] 274: i.e.--> i.e.,
+ [x] 277-278: [I never understood this: why duplicate .. why not just two tracks?]
    > Due to electronic fakes
+ [x] 279: from Belle --> from the Belle
+ [x] 280: detection inefficiency and mis-reconstruction. --> detection efficiency and mis-reconstruction bias.
+ [x] 280: MC sample --> The MC sample
+ [x] 281: of data for correcting --> of the data in order to correct for
+ [x] 284: NOfflineTrk, counting --> NOfflineTrk, and counting
+ [x] 285: only 11.49 fb−1 --> only a 11.49 fb−1
    > Ralf: only a sample size of 11.49...
+ [x] 287: 〈NCorrTrk〉is -->  〈NCorrTrk〉, is
+ [x] 292: within  single --> within a single
+ [x] 294: functions are expressed with particle --> functions express the particle
+ [x] 298: NOfflineTrk being the same --> NOfflineTrk is the same
+ [x] 299: of correlation -->  of the correlation
+ [x] 300: given --> obtained
+ [x] 301: in --> to
+ [x] 302: fidelity-lost introduced --> fidelity-lost effects introduced
+ [x] 302: histogram --> histogramming
+ [x] 305: under two coordinates --> in two coordinate systems
+ [x] 306: coordinate in -->  coordinates in the
+ [x] 307: while the --> while in the
+ [ ] 309: [does ref 24 use the missing momentum? ... if not: "event taken into consideration in this analysis."
    > Don''t know
+ [x] 310:  of interaction --> of the interaction [of any interaction?]
+ [x] 312: by beam --> by the beam
+ [x] 312: reflective of the hydrodynamic expansion of QGP, --> reflective of any initial fluctuations on the expanding e.g., QGP medium,
+ [x] 313: for if any effect is to emerge, the expansion results in the --> since the expansion results in
+ [x] 313: [well, QGP is in any case not defined]
    > avoid :P
+ [x] 314: Under search in --> In a different kind of search in the
+ [x] 315: with its interaction medium located --> when the interaction medium is located
+ [x] 316: with coordinate --> with a coordinate
+ [x] 316: an explicable --> a more explicable [?]
+ [x] 317: function under thrust axis coordinate is less --> functions in the thrust axis coordinate are less
+ [x] 318: however, they offer a better description
+ [x] 319-320: Under thrust axis coordinates, -->  In the thrust axis coordinate analysis,
+ [x] 321: belongs to. --> belongs.
+ [x] 322: on --> for
+ [x] 322: are --> is
+ [x] 324: under --> for both
+ [x] 325: Under beam axis coordinate, --> In the beam axis coordinate view, [?]
+ [x] 325: near origin --> near the origin
+ [x] 326: is contributed by pairs originating from --> has contributions from pairs originating in
+ [x] 326: and --> while [better?]
+ [x] 328: Under thrust axis coordinate, in contrast, --> In contrast, for the thrust axis coordinate,
+ [x] 329: origin intra-jet correlation observed. --> and near-side correlation observed.
    > Ralf: while lacking a sizeable near-side correlation.
+ [x] Fig. 1 caption: line 1: analysis --> analyses
+ [x] 330: Ridge signal can be closely looked up --> Evidence for the ridge signal can be best examined
    > Ralf: Ridge signal can be closely studied
+ [x] 331: long-range region with --> the long-range region
+ [x] 332: screen out --> separate any
+ [x] 333: apart from --> as distinct from a
+ [x] 335: on -> to
+ [x] 336: discrepancy --> discrepancies
+ [x] 337: in  final --> in  the final
+ [x] 340: [long-range Y(∆φ) means what ... large eta bin??]
    > yes
+ [x] 341: in ECL --> in the ECL
+ [x] 341: a 0–1% uncertainty. --> a 0–1% difference we assign as an uncertainty. [??]
+ [x] 342: is checked --> systematic is estimated
+ [ ] 342: by changing between --> by making variations in [you certainly aren't "changing between" the specified cuts are you ... maybe I don't understand]
    > (Letter)
+ [x] 344: for track --> for the track
+ [x] 344: high event multiplicity --> high multiplicity event [right?]
+ [x] 346: to derive precise --> in order to derive a precise
+ [x] 347: for  efficiency -->  for  the efficiency
+ [x] 348: is out of --> are due to
+ [x] 348-351: [this seems to be a run-on sentence that may contain several different points? and I guess doesn't refer to the tracking? ... if so, maybe reword:]
  "Other uncertainties originating from MC re-weighting, the B(0,0) factor, mixed events re-weighting, scaling correction due to binning and residual binning effect, are studied and contribute less than 0.5% uncertainty each."
+ [x] 352:  performing  ZYAM  --> performing the ZYAM
+ [x] 353:  with comparison --> with the comparison 3
+ [x] 353: Belle MC and --> Belle MC,
+ [x] 355: in which possible ridge signals reside in. --> is where possible ridge signals reside.
+ [x] 355-356:  coordinate, all generators consists -->  coordinate results, all generators are consistent
+ [x] 357: Belle simulation, --> the Belle simulation,
+ [x] 358: has --> gives
+ [x] 359: in HERWIG --> in the HERWIG
+ [x] 359: in near-side --> in the near-side
+ [x] Fig. 2 caption:
       line 1: over --> in the range
       line 2: analysis --> analyses
       line 2: color --> colored
       line 2: prediction --> predictions
       line 2: of --> on the
+ [x] 360: of ridge signal --> of any ridge signal
+ [x] 368: is --> are
+ [x] 370: axis coordinates performed with --> axis coordinate systems, performed using
+ [x] Fig. 3 caption:
       line 2: black). -->  black) frames.
       line 3: presentation purpose. --> presentation purposes.
       lines-4: The label “>5σ” represents for the confidence level larger
            than 99.99995%. -->  The label “>5σ” indicates the 5σ
            confidence level upper limit.
       [as I have mentioned before, I think this is overkill ... but in
       any case people understand what a "5σ confidence level upper limit
       means. I think it is somehat distracting to write out "99.99995%"]
+ [x] 371: Coordinate is --> Coordinate frame is
+ [x] 372: systems and in high --> systems or in beam axis coordinate high
    > in ALEPH ee thrust, we see differnet things
+ [x] 373: when measuring in the thrust axis coordinate --> when viewed in the thrust axis coordinate frame,
+ [x] 373: origin --> near-side
+ [x] 375: are  set  for  that  no  ridge  yield  are  measured --> are set on for the absence of any ridge yield in our measurements.
+ [x] 377: results are better -->  results found in this study are better