[A1n_d2n] Updated quasielastic asymmetry draft (version 2)

[Alexandre Deur]

Dear Michael,

Thank you for writing and sending the draft paper. Please find attached my specific comments. Beside them, I have some more general questions/comments:

  *
How do you seperate the elastic and quasi-elastic contributions? Was the momentum resolution sufficient? What about the elastic radiative tail? Likewise, is there some concern about possible Delta contamination at the larger excitation energies? I think some of this should be mentioned in the paper.
  *
You do not mention radiative corrections. Were they done? If so, this should be described. If not, why aren't they important (including the elastic tail).
  *
There is no discussion on the systematic errors. A short paragraph listing them and their typical values should be added.
  *
I find the paper a bit "light" on the physics analysis. You could compute the chi^2/ndf between the data and the 3 models, so that your statement on PWIA is quantitative rather than visual. Although the chi^2/ndf might be similar for the two Fadeev calculations (looking at Fig. 2), they will still permit to make a statement on how this type of data can distinguish between the available nuclear potentials. In fact, you may be able to already favor one over the other: I assume the uncertainties in Fig. 2 are stat+syst? Some of the systematic uncertainties should be point-to-point correlated, e.g., the beam and target polarimetries, beam charge... (unless each individual data point was taken with different settings. This is not described in the paper, so I assume they were taken in just two settings, one for each Q^2). If the point-to-point correlated systematics are important, the error bars relevant to the chi^2 will be smaller than the error bars shown in Fig. 2. Perhaps then, the chi^2/ndf will favor one Fadeev calculation over the other. Even if not, at least it will demonstrate what this type of data can potentially do, and strengthen the physics discussion. Also, perhaps it is worth mentioning the importance of the nuclear potential: it is the central input for nuclear structure calculation.

Best regards,

Alexandre

________________________________
From: A1n_d2n <a1n_d2n-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Mike Nycz via A1n_d2n <a1n_d2n at jlab.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 12:15 PM
To: a1n_d2n at jlab.org <a1n_d2n at jlab.org>
Subject: [A1n_d2n] Updated quasielastic asymmetry draft (version 2)

Dear A1n/d2n collaborators,
Please find attached a draft manuscript presenting the measurement of the
Helium-3 quasielastic asymmetry in the threshold region. These results
come from data collected during experiment E12-06-121A (Measurement of 3He
Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factor Diffractive Minima) run group. This
draft reflects suggestions and comments made to the previous draft. Please
send any comments to me (mnycz at jlab.org) by August 19th.

Best Regards,
Michael Nycz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/a1n_d2n/attachments/20240814/45b8c4be/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft_Quasielatic_Asymmetry_v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 389762 bytes
Desc: Draft_Quasielatic_Asymmetry_v2.pdf
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/a1n_d2n/attachments/20240814/45b8c4be/attachment-0001.pdf>