[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Upper limits for the photoproduction cross section for the Phi--(1860) pentaquark state off the deuteron
Hovanes Egiyan
hovanes.egiyan at gmail.com
Sun Aug 7 19:30:10 EDT 2011
Dear Dan,
Thanks for reading our draft and providing us with your comments. We implemented most of the
suggestion from your message. Below we present responses to some of the suggestions and comments.
The others were implemented in the paper.
Regards,
Hovanes.
1)
Page 2:
Left column.
Paragraph 2.
Line 7. Use "... experiment results is from the decay sequence ...".
This correction does not sound right. We left this sentence unchanged.
2)
Page 4:
Right column.
Paragraph 1.
- Here you mention acceptance and detector efficiencies but not
trigger efficiencies. I assume that is because you do not factor
them in any way into the acceptance and just leave them in your
systematics. Is this assumption correct?
The trigger inefficiency is included in the acceptance corrections. The uncertainty in the
trigger inefficiency is a part of the uncertainty in the normalization which we estimate
by comparing the known cross sections. The detection and reconstruction inefficiency in my opinion
would also include the trigger efficiency. But I think it is true that if we did not include the
trigger inefficiency into the acceptance and used it as some extra systematic normalization
uncertainty then it probably would result in similar upper limits for the cross sections.
3)
Page 7:
Citations. Why do you include a preprint number for some references?
Usually once something is published, you just use the journal reference.
The preprint number is available for some of the BibTex entries for our references.
This is how BibTex formatted it with \bibliographystyle{prsty} . We assume that the
editors will take care of the BibTex style in the actual publication, or at least will
tell us how they would like us to do it.
4)
Page 8:
Left column.
Paragraph 1.
Line 1. Use "The number of events in the mass range of the
sideband-subtracted spectrum in Fig. 6 is distributed ...". Actually
this sentence is not fully clear to me. Are you saying that if I
project Fig. 6 onto the y-axis that I will see a Gaussian distribution
offset from zero?
The "mass window" refers to the 20 MeV window for which the upper limits are estimated.
We are saying here that the number of events integrated within in each 20 MeV is distributed
randomly, according to a normal distribution around some expectation value. The variance of
the distribution is estimated by propagating the original statistical uncertainties through
the sideband subtraction procedure.
On 07/28/2011 02:49 PM, Daniel Carman wrote:
> July 28, 2011
>
>
> Dear Hovanes et al.,
>
> I have read through your Phi pentaquark paper and include my comments
> below. I just have a few minor things to bring up. The paper is well
> written overall. Let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
> ********************************************************************
> Page 1:
> Left column.
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 9. Use "... as part of a spin 1/2 anti-decuplet ...".
> Paragraph 2.
> Line 7. Use "anti-decuplet" for consistency with usage elsewhere.
>
> Page 2:
> Left column.
> Paragraph 2.
> Line 7. Use "... experiment results is from the decay sequence ...".
> Paragraph 3.
> Line 6. Use "... mass of the $\Xi^-(1321)\pi^-$ composite ...".
> Right column.
> Fig. 1. I think it would be good to indicate a size scale on this
> figure. Also an indication of the target location and the beam
> direction would be relevant.
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 1. Use "cross-checked".
>
> Page 3:
> Left column.
> Fig. 2 caption. Why do you use Ref.[37] for the PDG when you use
> Ref.[4] for all other PDG references in this paper?
> Paragraph 3.
> Line 9. You discuss the DOCA cut here but do not provide information
> on the CLAS tracking resolution about the target.
> Right column.
> Paragraph 2.
> Line 1. Use "... pair for the $\Lambda(1116)$, ...".
> Paragraph 4.
> Line 2. Use "... Table II, with the exception of the cascade mass cut ...".
>
> Page 4:
> Left column.
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 1. Use "... mass for the $\Xi^-(1321)$ and ...".
> Line 2. Use "We apply the 1.3175 ...".
> Line 8. Use "... reported mass of the $\Phi^{--}(1860)$.".
> Right column.
> Fig. 6 caption.
> Line 2. Use "mass bin. The error bars ...".
> Paragraph 1.
> - Here you mention acceptance and detector efficiencies but not
> trigger efficiencies. I assume that is because you do not factor
> them in any way into the acceptance and just leave them in your
> systematics. Is this assumption correct?
> Paragraph 2.
> Line 3. Use "... with an event configuration as in the first row ...".
>
> Page 5:
> Left column.
> Fig. 7 caption.
> Line 2. I suggest "... using restrictive cuts (see text for details)
> and from the GEANT-based simulations (b).".
> Paragraph 2.
> Line 1. I suggest "Because we do not know how the photoproduction
> cross section of the $\Phi^{--}(1860)$ depends on kinematics ...".
> - The discussion here and the references to "rows" in Table III are
> unnecessary confusing. You refer to row 1, but row 1 is a column
> label. Does the 2nd reaction cover rows 2 and 3 then? Anyway, to
> clean this up, give each reaction a number and refer to this
> number through the paper (in this section and in other references to
> Table III).
> Right column.
> Fig. 8 caption.
> Line 5. Use "... indicates the position of the peak seen by ...".
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 8. Use "... 1.862 GeV that decays only through the ...".
> Line 27. Use "... of the cross section and its upper limit.".
> Paragraph 2.
> Line 4. Use "... 1.862 GeV, the acceptance does not ...".
>
> Page 6:
> Left column.
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 5. Use "... so that the data acquisition system could cope ...".
> Paragraph 3.
> Line 22. Use "$\pm$15\%" for clarity.
> Right column.
> Table IV.
> - I suggest you draw a line across the table above the quadrature sum.
> Line 2. Use "... The overall systematic uncertainty ...".
> Line 3. Use "... as the square root of ...".
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 3. Use "... did not result in any qualitative change ...".
> Paragraph 5.
> Line 1. Use "... upper limits for the cross section for a ...".
> Line 4. Use "... bin as the mean value of a Gaussian ...".
> - Here you describe the Gaussian + polynomial fit. Is this a
> log-likelihood fit? Whatever, be specific here with your fitting
> details.
>
> Page 7:
> Left column.
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 5. Use "... around the center of each bin.".
> Paragraph 2.
> Line 10. Use "... prescription of the Feldman-Cousins ...".
> Line 12. Use "For a comparison, we assumed ...".
> Right column.
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 7. Use "... level for the photoproduction cross section of the
> reaction $\gamma d \to \Phi^{--}X$ multiplied by the branching ratio
> for ...".
> Citations. Why do you include a preprint number for some references?
> Usually once something is published, you just use the journal reference.
>
> Page 8:
> Left column.
> - Ref.[27] is incomplete. If this is a private communication, this should
> be stated.
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 1. Use "The number of events in the mass range of the
> sideband-subtracted spectrum in Fig. 6 is distributed ...". Actually
> this sentence is not fully clear to me. Are you saying that if I
> project Fig. 6 onto the y-axis that I will see a Gaussian distribution
> offset from zero?
> Right column.
> Paragraph 1.
> Line 3. Use "... according to the normal distribution:".
> Line 11 after Eq.(3). Use "... For the uncertainty in the value of ...".
>
> Page 9:
> Left column.
> Fig. 10 caption.
> Line 2. Use "$x$-axis".
> Right column.
> Paragraph 2.
> Line 12. Use "... showed that the coverage probability of this ...".
>
More information about the Clascomment
mailing list