MPD-ITS TDR v1.0

[ceballos]

The MPD-ITS Technical Design Report is now available at http://mpd.jinr.ru/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/mpd_its_tdr-1.pdf

Looking forward to get your feedbacks!

[wolbi]

Dear all,

here is a list of comments on the MPD-ITS Technical Design Report - v1.0.

My comments are restricted to Section 1, “Introduction”, which was very well
written by P. Senger. In the left column I indicate the line number that I
refer to. My comments are mostly linguistic and stylistic, but in some cases
they also address the contents. Still they are ordered chronologically, not
according to their importance.

1: “discovery of massive neutron stars,”
→ “discovery of very massive neutron stars,”
All neutron stars are massive, but recently they were discovered with a larger mass than predicted by a number of models.

10: “offer the possibility to explore”

23/24: “stars, together with the detection”

25: At this point, it should be explained what \rho_0 means. Actually a hint
about its meaning is given, but only much later, in line 159 - at least this
should be anticipated here.

28: The term “stiff EOS” might also be explained.

29/30: It is not obvious that a chiral effective theory applies to Lambda N
and Lambda NN interactions, with baryons that are not that light. This might
also be justified with a small comment.

42: “which do no longer”

42/43: about “based on a non-local 3-flavor Nambu Jona-Lasinio model”
The use of toy models is certainly okay, but what is the point of
introducing a non-locality, with all its conceptual problems?

45/46: “repulsive vector interactions among the quarks are introduced”
I would not denote these fermions as “quarks”, they have really not much
in common.

48: “are expected to be reached also” (don’t repeat ‘also’)

51: Here and throughout I would write the temperature in math mode, $T$.

60: Here I would not use math mode, since ‘st’ represent letters, not variables: “$1^{\rm st}$”.
In fact, this is how it is written e.g. in line 261, and similarly in line 263.

72: One might explain the unit “A GeV” when it appears for the first time.

90/91: “twice the saturation density.”

Figure 1.2: It might be more usual to write density in the label to the
vertical axis as “p”, instead of “P”.

97: “gold nuclei beams”

102: “The reason is that” (no comma)

126/130: Do the experimental result for the freeze-out temperature and the
numerical result for the pseudo-critical temperature really exactly agree,
and its uncertainty as well?

137: same as in line 60

138 to 140 and Figure 1.3: Is the particular Ref. [19] not somewhat over-emphasized here?
I think this is just one among a large number of conjectures about the CEP.

145: Why do you write “upper limit”? I think this is simply a result for
the critical temperature, with an upper and lower error.

150: I do not understand the statement:
“This LQCD result corroborates the prediction of the DSE-FRG calculations”.
What has been corroborated? Certainly not the (hypothetical) exact value of
the CEP quoted in lines 139/140.

152 and below: LaTex has an elegant symbols for that, \lesssim, and
similarly \gtrsim.

154: Here I wonder whether the symbols should be the other way round:
could it be that it should be \gtrsim in both cases on this line?

165: I suggest: “discovery of features in the QCD phase diagram.”

Caption to Figure 1.3: you wrote:
“T_c = 132+3-6 MeV for the critical endpoint of a first-order chiral
phase transition”
Should this be second-order?

175: “a variety of diagnostic probes as discussed in the previous sections.”
Perhaps you could write ‘as mentioned’, I think it has not really be ‘discussed’ here.

199: “$dE/dx$” should be written in math mode, and it should also be expressed in words. This is done, but only much later, in lies 347/348.

200: “Time-of-Flight (TOP)” should be ‘TOF’ or ‘ToF’.

207: does the term “topology” refer to the structure of the Feynman diagram?

208 and below: I would write the speed of light in math mode, $c$,
this definitely represents a parameter and not a letter.

208/209: Naive question (sorry):
is the time dilation considered in these values for the decay lengths?

217: “over the atomic mass range A = 1–197” this might sound as if
the entire range would be covered.

220: I would also write the luminosity in math mode, $L = …".

228: “Central Detector (CD) section”

230: “… requirements that the future …”

232: “of the NICA collider.”

236: “\sim 310~\mu$m, respectively, as…” (I suggest another comma)

239: New sentence: “… particles. This is required …”

241: “can be found”

244: I suggest to write “vertices”, as in lines 238, 256 and 279,
for example, rather than “vertexes” (I think both spellings exist,
but it should be unique, and ‘vertices’ is more elegant).

“short-lived charmed particles”, and again the question about the decay length.

247: “charged particles”, and again “vertices” (here and everywhere),
and a comma in front of “the optimisation”.

249: “… registration represent a very challenging task” (‘represent’,
and ‘task’ in singular)

253: the short-hand ITS has been introduced before.

254: “is also mandatory to be considered.”

255: “More detailed and stringent…”

260: “of about 5 to 10 $\mu$m.” (the dash might look confusing)

267: “device, the TPC, should”

281: “based on”

289: “of the upgraded ITS, compared to the old ITS used in the period 2008–2018, are”
(without these commas the sentence is hard to read).

291: “It shows the results”
“improvements of the impact”

294: “At the moment when the present TDR is being written, the”
and one could use the short-hand ITS, which was introduced and used before.

295: “commissioned” (one ‘s’ is missing)

299: “thermically and mechanically stable”

306: “They ensure a considerable”

307: “charged particle spectra”

307/308: I suggest to reconsider the formulation
“to produce the most transparent for radiation vertex detector”,
sounds a bit strange to me.

309/310: use the short-hand ITS, and “ALICE meets”

330: “in the X-Y … plane … 1 mm in the Z direction.”

333: “has been studied”

340: “throughout the transverse momentum interval”

340/341: “However, at larger …” (with ‘Although’ this does
not sound like a correct sentence to me).

344: “the extrapolation”

347: “charged particles”
“in the TPC, the specific”

349: “Fig. 1.7, kaons”

350: “0.7 GeV/c, and protons are discriminated”

353: “in Figs. 1.8 and 1.9”

“The reconstruction has been done”

356/357: “charged tracks are secondary, distinct”

359: “than a given threshold.”

365: In a title I would write “Inner Tracking System” explicitly.

368: “predictions [39], heavy”

“such reactions are created” or “such reactions are generated”

369: “carry information” (if you write ‘the information’, it sounds like
the entire information, but I don’t think that this is the case).

Figures 1.8 and 1.9: does the y-label mean “Entries at …” ?

You wrote “peak 6852” and “peak 7163”, but the peak heights look higher
in both figures.

Caption 1.8: “of the … spectra.”
Caption 1.9: “Reconstructed … spectra.”

375: “In the hadron phase, …”

376/377: “Producing a $D^{\circ} \bar D^{\circ}$ or $D^{+} D^{-}$ pair …
quark-antiquark pair $c \bar c$.”

378: “Therefore,”

380: “beginning of the deconfinement phase.”
or “onset of the deconfinement phase.”

382/383: “nucleus-nucleus”, “quark-antiquark”, and in lines 377 and 406

385: “by almost two orders of magnitude.”

396: “Using a vertex tracking detector”

398: “Improvement of the accuracy …”

400: “Reduction of the detection …”

401: “The ITS”

404: “risk of being overloaded.”

405: “will allow for the detection of”

References:

The format is far from consistent.
In some cases, like Refs. [5,8,14,21 etc.] the initial of an author
is written twice, in front of and behind the last name.
It should be written once, at a consistent place.

E.g. in Ref. [6] the year is missing.

The last page number is given in a few cases, like Ref. [7], but in most
cases not; I would skip it everywhere, for consistency.

If a collaboration name is given, as in Ref. [8], it should be followed
by a comma, “(The FOPI Collaboration), Nucl. …”, and similarly in cases
like Ref. [15].

In Ref. [26] the page number seems to be missing.

Between an initial and a last name there should be a space, this is
missing e.g. in Refs. [27,28].

Sometimes a reference ends with a period, but in other cases it doesn’t,
also that should be consistent.

[38] “Physics of Elementary Particles and Atomic Nuclei Letters,”

Titles are written in a few cases, like Refs. [40,41,42], but in most
cases not, so I would remove them everywhere.

[42]: “Greiner, C.” or “C. Greiner”, depending on the general convention
that you choose.

Preprint numbers are added in a few cases, but mostly skipped.

[48,49] “B. Abelev et al., K. Aamodt et al.”

[52] “Collaboration”

Regards, Wolfgang