[Clas_cascades] Comments on normalization paper

[Elton Smith]

Hi Lewis,

The current draft (despite all the comments to follow) is really
converging and reads fairly well. First I copy some more substantive
issues first, followed by detailed comments:

1. General comments: use SAPHIR all caps (or consistent notation with that
used by the experiment)
2. In all figures that use simulated data, state this explicitly as
"simulated GSIM data...". That will eliminate confusion about which is
actual data and which is simulated.
3. Make sure that every Figure is referenced in the text. Some references
are implied, but it is good form to make this explicit.

p. 9 Fig 5. Several comments:
o Question: Should the reconstructed and generated t-slopes be the same
and equal to 4 GeV2? If not, why not? Why are they so different from each
other and to the generated t-slope of 4 GeV2?

p. 29, general comment
"To solidify our results...we took the 2-5 GeV data points and COMPUTED
deviations of each data set from an average fit, which is shown in Figure
21. The average fit uses the combined data from EG3 and G11 to a 3rd order
polynomial [is this correct?] as shown in Figure 21. We then calculated
the deviations of each of the points from the average fit, as shown in
Figures 22-24. The deviations from the average fit were themselves it to a
constant which is shown on each of the figures. [Now describe the data
used for each of the figures, range of validity, etc. I assume that in all
cases the same average fit was used as a reference. If not, I think it
should be.]

p. 32 Table (also we assume column2 is the Lambda channel.

We do not understand how the uncertainty can go from 20-30% (first row) to
1-2% if the only change is the factor of 4.5->4.7??


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed comments.


title page

title, suggestion
Normalization study of the EG3 data using the Delta++ reaction channel

abstract, first sentence
"...(p pi+ pi- n) CROSS SECTION was COMPUTED to check the normalization
AND trigger efficiency of the EG3 data set...

abstract, last line
"...an agreement within 20 to 30%."

p. 1, first paragraph last line
atleast two words

p. 1, third paragraph, Give the specific limits of the tagged range for
both the EG3 and G11 data sets, instead of just the max for EG3.

p. 2 2.2 spelling, claculated

p. 2, immediately following, I assume tghe cut on missing mass is in GEV?

p. 2, 3.1, forth line
"...different or POORLY optimized..."

p. 3 middle of paragraph, "skim". In Latex use ``skim" for first inverted
commas.

p. 5, first paragraph, question
Is the cut on missing momentum really 2 GeV? It seems large but maybe ok?

p. 6 , 4.2 middle
...changes to the CALCULATED masses..."

p. 9 middle paragraph,
...the t-slope of t=4 -> the tslope of b= 4GeV^-2 [but see below]

p. 9, preceeding Fig 5:
...higher t bins, WHERE THE statistical error INCREASES sharply."

p. 9 Fig 5. Several comments:

o These figures are miniature. You may wish to enharge them.
o Label axes. Are they all -t in GeV2? (If so, could put this in the
caption).
o Caption bottom line 'in' duplicated.
o Question: Should the reconstructed and generated t-slopes be the same
and equal to 4 GeV2? If not, why not? Why are they so different from each
other and to the generated t-slope of 4 GeV2?

p. 10 middle second paragraph
Undefine Figure ??

p. 11. first line
Add (Figure 7) to end of first sentence.

p. 12, is Fig 12 mentioned in the text?

p. 15, Fig, 11 caption, suggestion
"Plots of the GSIM simulated Delta++ mass spectrum at two fixed photon
energies. The Breit-Wigner fitted function is superimposed."

p. 17, add some description of triggered and untriggered range:
Specify the tagged range of the EG3 data (4.48 - 5.5 GeV). Say that
considerable data were acquired in the untriggered region of 2 to 5 GeV
due to accidental coincidences with the tagger.

p. 17, following eq. 2
remove empty line, so that there is no paragraph indent. (or specify
\noindent).

p. 17, mid bottom paragraph, undderlying spelling

p. 18, following caption
atleast two words

p. 18, immediately, second line after caption
"...We chose LAMBDA production to extract the correction..."

p. 19, caption, change last sentence [correct numbers as needed]
The triggered tagger energy range for the EG3 data of 4.48 to 5.5 GeV
corresponds to the EID range of 187 to 767. The untriggered tagger energy
range is between 1.2 and 4.48 GeV, which corresponds to the EID range of
1-186. [I don't think there is a 0 in the EID, or is there?]

p. 20 middle second paragraph, replace last three sentences

"We found through this study a discrepancy in CORRECTION to the trigger
efficiency of our Delta++ cross section. For the Phi-- analysis, this
efficiency was studied for 4 tracks in 3 sectors in the detector. However,
this analysis requires exactly 3 tracks in 3 sectors, which is the same
number as that required in by the trigger."

p. 21
last line before fig, atleast is still two words

p. 21,
last line before fig. seems to be cut off. To solve, use 'includegraphics
with the bb option' [I can give you more details if you need them].

p. 22 second line
Figures 17 AND 18

p. 22 next to last line before fig
atleast two words

p. 25, last line first paragraph
"...and cuts WERE made to both data sets."

p. 25, Table
Rows 2-7 give the values of the cut regions.
Other rows give the approximate correction (rows 1, 13)
Some rows give uncertainty? in the correction (rows 8,9, 11b)
Value of the flux normaliation (row 12)

May wish to separate out these different functions into three tables? It
is nice to have all in one table, but either additional explanation is
required or the table should be split up.

p. 25, last paragraph, suggestion
"All corrections listed in Table 2 were applied to each...The only
DIFFERENCE shown ..."

p. 26, Figure 19, Axes need to be labeled (cross section units) and x
axis.

p. 26, third line.
Instead of second and fith from last bin" give specific energy values.

p. 26, middle
"The DATA ABOVE 5 gEv is also being studied..."

p. 26, last two lines
"...we compare THE TWO DATA SETS in the overlap range of 2 to 5 GeV, which
checks the efficiency and normalization OF THE EG3 DATA."

p. 27, last two lines
close -> closed (two instances).
Also The symbols in Figures 20-25 do not correspond to either the text or
the captions. Some are open in the figure, but closed in the caption, etc.
Should check them all out and make sure the are consistent.
Saphir data is not black in the figures.


General: If it is easy to redo the plots: I suggest red (not pink), blue
and black. Other colors do not copy well and can be confused.

p. 29, text positions
Because of the large number of plots relative to text, I suggest that you
place figures 20-25 all to the back and let the text come together on p.
27. It will be easier to read.

p. 29, general comment
"To solidify our results...we took the 2-5 GeV data points and COMPUTED
deviations of each data set from an average fit, which is shown in Figure
21. The average fit uses the combined data from EG3 and G11 to a 3rd order
polynomial [is this correct?] as shown in Figure 21. We then calculated
the deviations of each of the points from the average fit, as shown in
Figures 22-24. The deviations from the average fit were themselves it to a
constant which is shown on each of the figures. [Now describe the data
used for each of the figures, range of validity, etc. I assume that in all
cases the same average fit was used as a reference. If not, I think it
should be.]

p 30, 31. captions.
Again symbols in Figues do not correspond to those in caption.

p30, 31. In the caption give the valuie of the fitted constant to the
data.

p. 31, just before Figure 24,
adn spelling

p. 31 bottom,
Figure 22 -> 24

p. 32, Table caption
EG33 -> EG3
Statment "Also for EG3 to Saphir cover the full range." does not make
sense to me.

p. 32 Table (also we assume column2 is the Lambda channel.
Heading, column 1: Criteria(Correction factor) -> Data sets (range)
Heading, columns 2 and 3: Use two lines, as follows:

Data sets (range) & Inclusive Channel Lambda & Exclusive Channel Delta++
                  & (untagged factor = 4.5)   & (untagged factor = 4.7)

We do not understand how the uncertainty can go from 20-30% (first row) to
1-2% if the only change is the factor of 4.5->4.7??

p. 33 summary, second line
"...was identified by observing its p pi+pi- decay products using skimmed
data..."

p. 33 summary, toward end of paragraph, suggestion
Sentence that starts with "Through our study..." could be rephrazed using
something like "We found that we could normalize the untriggered range of
our data by using a single constant factor."

The summary should be a little more quantitative, e.g. use some numbers
from the Table to firm up the summary.



Elton Smith
Jefferson Lab MS 12H5
12000 Jefferson Ave
Suite # 16
Newport News, VA 23606
elton at jlab.org
(757) 269-7625
(757) 269-6331 fax