[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Differential Photoproduction Cross Sections for the Sigma0(1385), Lambda(1405), and Lambda(1520)

[Reinhard Schumacher]

Hello Dan,
	Thank you for your reading and correcting of this draft paper.  It has 
been revised and we will post it shortly.  Below we respond to your 
comments.

Reinhard and Kei


> 						May 4, 2013
>
>
> Dear Kei and Reinhard,
>
> I have read through your paper on the hyperon cross section measurements in photoproduction
> and my comments are included below. In general this is a well written paper that is clearly
> presented. I include all of my comments below based on the paper draft dated Apr. 30. If you
> have any questions, let me know.
>
> 				Regards,
>
> 				  Daniel
>
> ********************************************************************
> Page 1.
>   Title. No period at the end of the title.
Done.

>
> Page 2.
>   Line 60. Use "LEPS Collaboration".
Done.

>
> Page 3.
>   Line 160. The sentence beginning "They concluded that the contact term ..." ends
>     very awkwardly. The part "though the $K^*$ only at SLAC energies" seems like an
>     incomplete thought. Are you trying to say that at lower energies both the K and
>     K* exchanges are significant and that at higher energies only the K* exchange
>     is significant?
Sentence divided and reworded.
>
> Page 4.
>   Line 216. I suggest "... Accelerator Facility, during May and June ...".
Done.

>   Line 244. Add a space before "were again in the ...".
Done.

>
> Page 6.
>   Fig. 2 caption. The first line says "Fit result to ... before MC iteration." Then
>     subfigure (a) is labeled as initial fit and (b) is labeled as after two iterations.
>     Something doesn't make sense here.
Yes, this caption was not clear at all.  Now it is fixed, by putting the 
"(a)" at the beginning of the caption.

>
> Page 7.
>   Table I. The text states that the normalization is the dominant contribution to the
>     systematics as 7.3%. However, the table shows that the C.L. cut has a contribution as
>     high as 12%. This contribution is never discussed. Also how can the total systematic
>     be listed as 11.6% when three of the contributions have a range of values (presumably
>     kinematics dependent). Shouldn't the final systematic have a range as well?
This is exactly the same table of systematic uncertainties we used and 
discussed in the previous paper and we don't plan to change it. However, 
we changed the text a little in two places to point out that we are 
addition "typical" values in quadrature, not the worst possible ones. 
That is, it is fair, when estimating the overall systematic 
normalization uncertainty of the experiment, to use average or typical 
values rather than the worst of all.  It is, after all, an estimate.

>
> Page 8.
>   Fig. 3 caption. The second line says the error bars are "combined statistical and
>     fit uncertainties". It is not clear to me what this means. Is the total total
>     uncertainty including both statistical and systematic uncertainties? What is included
>     here?
In the previous paper we discuss the uncertainties associated with the 
signal channel fits.  We modified the figure caption to point back to 
Figure 1, which is an example of the yield-extraction fits.  These were 
done in each and every angle and energy bin.

>
> Page 9.
>   Fig. 4 caption. I suggest "Some of the nine curves (see text for details) lie on ...".
Done.

>
> Page 10.
>   Line 460. I prefer "statistical uncertainties".
Done.

>   Line 466. Use "... modes was reconstructed ...".
Done.

>
> Page 11.
>   Fig. 9. There is an apparently spurious outlier at costhkcm~-0.35 that is off the
>    trend by nearly an order of magnitude. Something looks problematic here, especially
>    give that this is off of the trend by more than your systematic assignment.
We investigated this data point and found a fit that had not converged 
in the analysis.  That fit was massaged to fit correctly, and this data 
point is now "in line".

>   Line 535. Use "... and although this is more ...".
Done.

>
> Page 12.
>   Fig. 10 caption. In the first line remove the period after "center-of-mass".
Done.

>
> Page 13.
>   Fig. 11 caption. Line 7. Use "... et al.} [19] and the solid black ...".
Various words and colors were changed to be more consistent with other 
figures in the paper.

>   Line 608. Use "... mechanism that interferes with ...".
Done.

>
> Page 15.
>   Figs. 13, 14. I am not a big fan of you spline fits. The red curve is especially
>    distracting and unphysical with its zig-zag pattern. Is there a reason that you
>    don't just eliminate these lines from the figure? I don't think that they add anything
>    of value and serve to detract from the data.
When we look at the figure without the lines it is much harder to see 
the trends.  We don't think the spline fits are great, either, but they 
are better than nothing.  We don't want to do a polynomial fit since 
then people would assume we have a model of some sort, and we don't. The 
caption makes clear, we hope that we only want to "guide the eye".

>
> Page 18.
>   Fig. 16. Your vertical line is too faint to be seen.
They look OK on both our screens and printers.

>   Line 717. Use "... structure (for a recent review ...".
Done.

>   Line 724. Use "... its creation, ...".
Done.

>
> References.
>   Why do you list both the journal publication and the preprint number? I am not in
>     favor of listing both.
The preprint info has been taken away.

>   You citation listing for the journals frequent do not do well with spacing and
>     formatting. There are lots of instances of things like "Phys.Rev.Lett." instead
>     of "Phys. Rev. Lett.".
We did a pass through the references and fixed them up as best we can.

>   Ref.[38] has some formatting problems with "(2013)" listed immediately after the
>     the author's names.
We gave up wrestling with LaTeX on this one.  Let the journal editor 
figure it out.

>
> Page 21.
>   Line 858. I suggest "...statistical uncertainties ...".
Done.

>
> Page 23.
>   Table III caption. On the third line you do not use consistent notation for the kaon
>    angle. Here you have only "\cos \theta" instead of "\cos \theta_{K^+}^{c.m.}".
Fixed.  Note that the table has changed its structure somewhat due to a 
revision of one of the cross section bins.


>