<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: medium; background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dear colleagues,</span>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"> <span style="font-size: medium;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">We will have a BDX
meeting on <b>Friday </b></span><b style="font-size:
medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">September 2 at
10</b><b style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">:00AM (EST</b><span style="font-size: medium;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">) </span><b
style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">- (16:00 ITALY)</b><br style="font-size: medium;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">
<span style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">For remote connection, follow the link reported below.</span><br
style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jlab-2Dorg.zoomgov.com_j_1602402962-3Fpwd-3DSGtYZTFyOVgrbEUxdHN3Z1N1SVYrUT09&d=DwMDaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=Ru7nA6zPBSFajtw1o6aZjchIV9Cs2SBk2RiVldzQhDc&m=Mz2xtv_9isviuMBbRUb1f7z-sd79V25wnLGbz9cALYrbC1pJ-iqgemHUPEISffoF&s=8-bugaMlfVhv7DGUUp7eHP3_oQmDx7bl7D4dhSe7VZc&e=" moz-do-not-send="true">https://jlab-org.zoomgov.com/j/1602402962?pwd=SGtYZTFyOVgrbEUxdHN3Z1N1SVYrUT09</a><br>
<br>
Main items to discuss: PRD referee's report (see below)<br>
<br style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">
<span style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">Talk to you tomorrow</span><br style="font-size:
medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">Cheers</span><br style="font-size: medium;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">Marco<br>
<br>
</span>ps Andrea already set an overleaf doc <br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1zb4uXiux0r6jkPs-5FvWVmnt7AIdaNly7xo3adJIVNyMI_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMDaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=Ru7nA6zPBSFajtw1o6aZjchIV9Cs2SBk2RiVldzQhDc&m=Mz2xtv_9isviuMBbRUb1f7z-sd79V25wnLGbz9cALYrbC1pJ-iqgemHUPEISffoF&s=MwTB3JvOl86CNi-s_eZ-unpzF7Cy3mk4q52vvwWc3lI&e=" class="">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zb4uXiux0r6jkPs_vWVmnt7AIdaNly7xo3adJIVNyMI/edit?usp=sharing</a><br>
where we can address referee's comments.<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<br>
Subject: Your_manuscript DV12847 Battaglieri
<br>
Date: 2022-08-29 15:01
<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:prd@aps.org">prd@aps.org</a>
<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:luca.marsicano@ge.infn.it">luca.marsicano@ge.infn.it</a>
<br>
<br>
Re: DV12847
<br>
Dark matter search with the BDX-MINI experiment
<br>
by M. Battaglieri, M. Bond\'i, A. Celentano, et al.
<br>
<br>
Dear Dr. Marsicano,
<br>
<br>
The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees.
<br>
Comments from the report appear below.
<br>
<br>
These comments suggest that considerable revision of your paper
may be
<br>
in order. If you resubmit your manuscript, please include a
summary of
<br>
the changes made and a brief response to all recommendations or
<br>
criticisms.
<br>
<br>
Yours sincerely,
<br>
<br>
Urs M. Heller, Ph.D.
<br>
Editor
<br>
Physical Review D
<br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:prd@aps.org">prd@aps.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__journals.aps.org_prd_&d=DwMDaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=Ru7nA6zPBSFajtw1o6aZjchIV9Cs2SBk2RiVldzQhDc&m=Mz2xtv_9isviuMBbRUb1f7z-sd79V25wnLGbz9cALYrbC1pJ-iqgemHUPEISffoF&s=V9Lckth7U0B2AJ0P6FctQ_KF83snD4nJ_nL2qarFnXg&e=">https://journals.aps.org/prd/</a>
<br>
Follow us on Twitter @PhysRevD
<br>
<br>
NEWS FROM THE PHYSICAL REVIEW JOURNALS
<br>
<br>
PRX Energy is now open for submissions
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.aps.org_3lNdIqK&d=DwMDaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=Ru7nA6zPBSFajtw1o6aZjchIV9Cs2SBk2RiVldzQhDc&m=Mz2xtv_9isviuMBbRUb1f7z-sd79V25wnLGbz9cALYrbC1pJ-iqgemHUPEISffoF&s=nbinJm7dRVEb6X4zw4am0p2biWpR9dScJgVok7knpXU&e=">https://go.aps.org/3lNdIqK</a>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
Report of the Referee -- DV12847/Battaglieri
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
Review of DV12847 PRD manuscript “Dark matter search with the
BDX-MINI
<br>
experiment”,
<br>
by M. Battaglieri, M. Bond\'i, A. Celentano, et al.
<br>
<br>
Major findings:
<br>
<br>
The BDX-MINI experiment was used to search for LDM that might be
<br>
produced in interactions of an intense electron beam.
Experimental
<br>
setup, detector simulation and the data collection campaign
<br>
(beam-on/off modes) are described in detail. Analysis procedure
and
<br>
statistical approach established an upper limit on the
production of
<br>
light dark matter.
<br>
In this work the BDX-MINI is described as a demonstration
experiment
<br>
that was sensitive to some regions of parameter space already
excluded
<br>
by other recent, more sensitive experiments in the field.
<br>
Although the BDX-MINI might provide the guidance for the next
<br>
generation beam dump experiments planned at intense electron
beam
<br>
facilities, the work presented here still does not demonstrate
the
<br>
discovery potential of the next generation experiment.
<br>
Given this is a test (pilot experimental setup that did not
provide a
<br>
competitive LDM limit), I expected more discussion on future
prospects
<br>
i.e. on how this demonstration would scale up to the “full-size”
<br>
experiment and what would be theestimates for a competitive
detection
<br>
sensitivity of the potential future experiment.
<br>
I believe that if the manuscript included the discussion on
prospects
<br>
and sensitivity of the next phase BDX experiment it would meet
<br>
requirements for Phys. Rev. D publications. I recommend authors
<br>
revisit the manuscript and add a discussion on how the BDX-MINI
may
<br>
scale up to a “full-seize” BDX experiment with more competitive
<br>
sensitivities.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Other comments/questions:
<br>
<br>
Abstract:
<br>
We assume “In some kinematics, …” might read better as “In some
<br>
kinematic regions of interest, …”. Please check.
<br>
<br>
Section I:
<br>
Should the “… through direct or indirect annihilation into SM.”
be “…
<br>
through direct or indirect annihilation into SM particles.”?
<br>
<br>
Please explain how “ … the outcome of this pilot experiment is
worthy
<br>
in its own right.”
<br>
<br>
FIG 1: It would be helpful for a reader to have the electron
beam
<br>
indicated in the figure, and to mark the BDX-MINI detector
location in
<br>
Well-1.
<br>
<br>
Section II:
<br>
Temperature and humidity inside the tent recorded, but not
mentioning
<br>
how/where to use these. How do you calibrate systematics caused
by
<br>
temperature and humidity change?
<br>
<br>
640ns readout window is decided in a way that matches the beam
window?
<br>
<br>
Section III:
<br>
FIG. 3. It is difficult to read the Y-axis label in the figure.
Do you
<br>
understand the vertical band at ~0.05 GeV of FIG.3?
<br>
<br>
Please explain why the fixed coupling constant \epsilon_{0} =
3.87 x
<br>
10<sup class="moz-txt-sup"><span
style="display:inline-block;width:0;height:0;overflow:hidden">^</span>-4</sup>
was chosen? Why this value?
<br>
<br>
GEANT4: please include information on GEANT 4 version and its
physics
<br>
list used in the simulation.
<br>
<br>
Section IV:
<br>
How do you calibrate the detector energy response? Are you using
<br>
muon’s dE/dx or some other methods to calibrate the energy
scale? What
<br>
is it?
<br>
<br>
What the veto system detection efficiency for signals with <
5 PE? Are
<br>
you sensitive to single PE signals in your LDM search?
<br>
<br>
“The response in the vertical sides of the IV(OV) was measured
by
<br>
selecting hits in the …”
<br>
What do you mean by hits here? Waveforms? Photon
elections?
<br>
What’s the definition of efficiency here? Muon veto efficiency?
<br>
<br>
[Cosmic background] “a possible LDM hit” → you mean an event?
<br>
<br>
FIG. 6: What’s the definition of sigma here? Could you draw them
on
<br>
the same plot and add 1 and 2 sigma bands to indicate where the
1 and
<br>
2 sigma regions are in the bottom panel?
<br>
<br>
Are there other beam-correlated backgrounds (such as muons,
neutrons)
<br>
from electron beam primary and secondary interactions in the
target
<br>
and surrounding materials?
<br>
<br>
What FLUKA version did you use for the neutrino background
simulation?
<br>
<br>
It would be important, for neutrino background considerations,
to
<br>
include a figure that shows a flux and/or energy distribution of
<br>
neutrino expected in the detector.
<br>
<br>
You also say that the “Vertical (cosmic muon) tracks were
selected by
<br>
requiring a significant release of energy (>6 MeV) in at
least one
<br>
crystal in the ECal top part and in at least one crystal in the
bottom
<br>
part.” Is there a potential interaction from so-called “clipping
<br>
muons” that deposit a small fraction of energy (< 6 MeV) that
would go
<br>
undetected with your event selection?
<br>
<br>
Please clarify if the Fig. 7 is simulation only (e.g. no
measured
<br>
data)? What is “green” vs “dark green” there? Dark green points
<br>
missing from the plot?
<br>
<br>
Equation (6): are the backgrounds included as bin-to-bin
correlated or
<br>
uncorrelated? How does the assumption of correlated vs
uncorrelated
<br>
backgrounds would affect results?
<br>
<br>
Where are the u^j_b parameters (that you have in Eqution(6))
counted
<br>
in Equation(7)? Are they merged into the nuisance parameters?
<br>
<br>
Table1: Could you talk about how you do the energy calibration
<br>
briefly? I.e. what effects are taken into account in your
calibration?
<br>
<br>
FIG. 8 and 9 (also applied to the other simulation plots): The
mass
<br>
chosen in different plots is different. Is there a reason you
did not
<br>
use a single mass to draw all the plots for the illustration?
What is
<br>
the effect of a different mass?
<br>
<br>
FIG. 8. Is it as expected the detector response alpha_7 is not
<br>
monotonic comparing to the others (alpha_1-alpha_7)?
<br>
<br>
You consider the ECal energy effects on the signal, but the
energy
<br>
scale variations will affect the background event distribution,
and
<br>
background rates above the threshold. How is the background
treated in
<br>
your sensitivity estimate?
<br>
<br>
FIG.9: Signal energy scale is varied, but how about background
energy
<br>
scale?
<br>
<br>
Section V:
<br>
Fig. 11 Is there a reference for the thick black lines?
<br>
<br>
“... the sensitivity is mostly dependent on the choice of the
minimum
<br>
total energy, and while it depends weakly on the other analysis
<br>
parameters.” It does not even depend on your background
(neutrino and
<br>
muon) modeling? If it is only strongly associated with a single
<br>
contribution, would that also indicate some bottleneck or
possible
<br>
underlying issue, for example, your energy estimation or
calibration?
<br>
<br>
Fig 11 caption: “COHERENT”.
<br>
<br>
Section VI:
<br>
As mentioned above, we expected to see more on prospects and
<br>
sensitivity of the next phase BDX experiment. How do we scale up
the
<br>
BDX-MINI to a next generation experiment?
<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"></span></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>