[Clas12_verystrange] review comments - abstract

Tue Apr 24 17:39:05 EDT 2012

Hi Veronique,

Thanks, I personally like your revision

Cheers, Igor

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:32:27 -0400 (EDT), ziegler at jlab.org wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Below is my attempt at the new abstract.  Let me know what you think,
> especially check if I got the numbers right.  Thanks,
> Veronique.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> We propose to study the production mechanisms of the $S=-2, -3$ baryons
> in exclusive photonuclear reactions with the CLAS12 detector.
> 
> The proposed experiment, to be run in parallel with the approved
> CLAS12 meson spectroscopy experiment [E12-11-005], is expected to yield 
>total
> samples containing $\sim 8000$ $\Omega^-$ ($S=-3)$ and  $\sim 1.182$ million
> $\Xi$ ($S=-2)$ baryons after reconstruction, based on predicted cross
> sections
> and simulated results.
> 
> These data would provide the statistics necessary to obtain the first
> precision
> measurement of the $\Omega^-$ differential cross section in the reaction
> $\gamma p \rightarrow \Omega^- K^+ K^+ K^0$, and to search for excited
> $\Omega^-$
> states.
> 
> This experiment would provide the world's largest sample of cascade baryons
> in a photoproduction environment.  Our cascade data sample would be used to
> search for new and missing excited $\Xi$ states with the possibility to
> measure their quantum numbers, as well as the mass splittings of cascade
> doublets, with a factor of 10 increase in precision over the existing PDG
> values for the ground state.
> In addition, we would extract spin-parity information of the
> already-established $\Xi(1690)$ and $\Xi(1820)$ from a double-moment
> analysis.
> These $\Xi$ data samples would also provide the statistics necessary for
> measuring, for the first time, the beam polarization transfer and
> induced polarization of the ground state $\Xi^-$ in the reaction
> $\gamma p \rightarrow \Xi^- K^+K^-$.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> Hi, Igor,
>>
>> Looks like we have some work to do.
>>
>> Below is the comments from the reviewer. My jlab account is suspended. I
>> don't know if our mailing list accepts my fiu email. If not, could you
>> forward this out?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Lei
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Keith Griffioen <griff at jlab.org<mailto:griff at jlab.org>>
>> Date: April 24, 2012 6:01:46 AM EDT
>> To: "Hicks, Kenneth" <hicks at ohio.edu<mailto:hicks at ohio.edu>>
>> Cc: Keith Griffioen <griff at jlab.org<mailto:griff at jlab.org>>, "Marco
>> Battaglieri (battaglieri at ge.infn.it<mailto:battaglieri at ge.infn.it>)"
>> <battaglieri at ge.infn.it<mailto:battaglieri at ge.infn.it>>, "Lei Guo
>> (lguo at jlab.org<mailto:lguo at jlab.org>)"
>> <lguo at jlab.org<mailto:lguo at jlab.org>>
>> Subject: Re: proposal
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> Here are some comments on the proposal,  "Photoproduction of the Very
>> Strangest Baryons on the Proton Target in CLAS12"
>>
>> Generally, I think the proposed experiment is interesting, relevant and
>> doable.  It would be a real shame not to use already allocated beam time
>> to study the multiply-strange resonances using CLAS12.
>>
>> The proposal, however, could use some polishing.  This is important for
>> two reasons: 1) the easier it is for the PAC to understand, the better the
>> proposal will fare, and 2) the proposal will become a decade-long
>> reference for a wide community, so it should be written very well.
>>
>> I didn't start out to make editorial corrections, but I did note some
>> things.  Please see:
>> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/clas12/griff/Strangest.pdf
>>
>> The Abstract, Introduction and Physics Motivation were meandering and
>> repetitive.  I often felt I was reading certain statements again and
>> again.  The proposal would be better served if all of this were tighter,
>> more concise, and to the point.
>>
>> As to the organizational structure, I would eliminate all subsections in
>> italics indicated by an arabic numeral.  Roman numeral and Roman lettered
>> sections are fine, but the italicized subsections are infrequent,
>> sporadic, and consequently confusing.  Then I would make more logical
>> divisions:
>>
>> (subject headings below are just my abbreviations)
>> Abstract:  Be more specific and more precise.  What do you plan to
>> measure?  How?  With what precision.  Save the "Almost half a century" and
>> "unique lens" stuff for the introduction.
>> I. Introduction
>> II. Physics Motivation
>> A. Search for Omega
>> B. Missing Cascades
>> C. Cascade Polarization
>> D. Elastic Scattering
>> III. Cross Section Models
>> A. VMD
>> B. Effective Lag. 1
>> C. Effective Lag. 2
>> (kill the summary)
>> IV. Cross Section Estimates
>> A. Xi
>> B. Omega
>> V. Specialized Detector Components
>> A. Forward Tagger
>> B. Calorimeter
>> C. Hodo
>> D. FT-TRACK
>> E. Trigger
>> F. Status
>> VI. CLAS12 Measurement
>> A. Omega Production and Final States
>> B. Xi production and Final States
>> C. Spin and Parity
>> V. Beam-Time Request
>> (kill the summary)
>>
>> You go through nice MC simulations and show how you can get virtually
>> background-free distributions in Fig. 24.  During the last collaboration
>> meeting this point was lost on some of the most knowledgeable physicists
>> in the audience.  You need to make sure this doesn't happen with the
>> proposal as well.  If there is one figure the PAC is to understand, which
>> is it?  I would think Fig. 24, but then you need to make very sure that
>> all of your text points to this and makes sure the reader understands it
>> perfectly.
>>
>> I find that the proposal is missing the final step that shows what you
>> expect to measure.  You've simulated things well, you've estimated
>> production cross sections, etc., but you show no plots with expected error
>> bars for any of the things you really want to know.  Where is the plot
>> that shows simulated measured data points for Omega photoproduction as a
>> function of photon energy?  Where is the equivalent plot for the Cascades?
>>  Where is your simulated Fig. 25 (bottom) plot for the resonances you will
>>  determine the spin and parity for?  What is the simulation of the plots
>> you would put into the PRL article you write after analyzing these data?
>> How do your expected results compare to what Hall D might produce?
>> Can you put simulated CLAS12 data on Figure 21?  What about on Figure 20?
>> Can you put CLAS12 simulated data on Figure 19 as well?  This would show
>> how much better 12 GeV is than what was possible with CLAS.
>>
>> In the end, you have no figures that in one powerpoint slide would
>> summarize what you will measure and how it compares to previous knowledge.
>>  It would be very helpful for you to have such.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Keith
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Keith Griffioen
>> Professor of Physics
>> College of William & Mary
>> (757) 221-3537
>> griff at physics.wm.edu<mailto:griff at physics.wm.edu>
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Hicks, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>> Hi Keith and Marco,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is the proposal which is ready for your review.  I’m cc’ing this
>> message to Lei Guo, who is the contact person for any questions.  Thanks
>> for your help!
>>
>>
>>
>> Please finish the review by May 4.  Since the authors will need time to
>> respond to your suggestions, I hope you can have a first round of comments
>> by April 20.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Lei Guo [mailto:lguo at jlab.org]
>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 8:33 PM
>> To: Hicks, Kenneth
>> Subject: proposal
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, Ken,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is the our proposals. Please let me know if any more information
>> is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> Lei
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Lei Guo <leguo at fiu.edu>
>>
>> Date: April 6, 2012 6:09:06 PM EDT
>>
>> To: Lei Guo <lguo at jlab.org>
>>
>> Subject: proposal