[Clas_cascades] Comments on latest draft

[Elton Smith]

HI Hovanes,

I think the paper flows quite smoothly now.  Here are some comments as I 
read through the draft:

page 1, title
...for THE protoproduction...

abstract

...not indicate ANY statistically....

p 2. right colum, second paragraph half way down

...beam axis. The REGIONS between...

p. 3 left column, beginning event selection

The main goal of the analysis...

p. 3 right column bottom and Table II

To be consistent with the text, I believe you need to interchange the 
last two rows.

Also, see text top left column p.4

The text seems to imply that the DOCA (Xipi) cut is not included in Fig. 
4, but is included in Fig 5. If this is the case, I suggest you put the 
DOCA(Xipi) and Mass (Xi) cuts together on the bottom rows of Table II 
and modify the text on the bottom of p. 3 right. Otherwise, eliminate 
the comment referring to the DOCA (Xipi) cut when discussing Fig. 5.

p. 4 right column, bottom paragraph:

...phase-space generator ACCORDING TO THE MODEL SHOWN in the first row...

p. 5 left column bottom paragraph mid

...generator. WE studied FOUR configurations and the RELATIVE 
ACCEPTANCES are given...

p. 5 right column first paragraph toward bottom:

spell out root-mean-square (RMS) -- add acronym since it is used later 
in text.

a couple of sentences below:

...mass of THE Xipi system FOR the process in row 1....

p. 6 left column top

You use 'TOF' system, but given your definitions, perhaps 'SC' inputs to 
the main trigger is more consistent.

p. 6 right column top paragraph

...these variations did not PRODUCE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN the 
invariant mass..

p. 8 appendix, right column mid column. This is my only substantive 
comment. It might clarify the text, as well as specify specifically what 
was done, if em, sigma_eps, bm and sigma_b are described a little more. 
Here is my suggestion for rewriting the paragraph following Eq 3. Please 
check that the description is accurate:

where mu is the number of true events, e is the acceptance factor for 
the signal, b is the true background event number, and x is the observed 
number of events in the 20 MeV window for one specific fit. The 
experimental statistical uncertainty is denoted by sigma_x. The 
estimated number of background events is determined from the polynomial 
fits to the background, as shown in Fig. 6, and its uncertainty, 
sigma_b, is taken from errors returned from the fit. The estimated 
signal acceptance, e_m, is determined by Monte Carlo and shown in Fig. 
8. For the error in the value of e_m, sigma_e, we use the systematic 
uncertainty of 26\% (Table IV). Similar to the Rolke method...

p. 9 last sentence, question/comment. Can you replace this sentence with 
the following?

The Monte-Carlo tests showed that the coverage is greater than 95%.

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