[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Beam-spin Asymmetries from Semi-inclusive Pion Electroproduction

[Kyungseon Joo]

Dear Michel,

Thanks so much for your detailed comments.  We will incorporate your
comments in our next revised version.  Thanks again.

Best regards, Kyungseon


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Michel Garçon <michel.garcon at cea.fr> wrote:

> Comments on BSA pion SIDIS by Gohn et al.
> Michel Garçon, Nov. 13, 2013
>
> I think there are several stylistic errors that will be picked up by
> others. I just mention a few. The number in front of each comment refers to
> the line number.
> •       Abstract: “ALU is a twist-3 structure….” -> “ALU is a twist-3
> quantity….”
> •       Abstract: “high statistical data” -> “high-statistics data”
> •       9: necessitate
> •       78 and 87: avoidable repetition of “related to quark-gluon-quark
> correlations”
> •       89: this sentence heavy and not grammatically correct.
> •       Eq. 3: why subscript h on the angle? Remove.
> •       114: remove “Recently”
> •       144: “will provide access… “. This paper not only shows that at
> present we cannot disentangle  the different contributions to ALU, but it
> does not sketch how it will be possible in the future. I would be more
> cautious and say “should provide access….”.
> •       154: “relative uncertainties of 10% or less”. This is not true if
> I look at the tables of numerical results. In addition, I would avoid
> talking about relative uncertainties for an asymmetry; absolute
> uncertainties are more relevant here (they do not vanish when the asymmetry
> goes to 0).
> •       151: for the same reasons, I would quote the beam polarization as
> 0.75 +/- 0.03. Otherwise, as written, one never knows if it is .03 or
> .03*.75.
> •       157: it is not so obvious to the reader (and not demonstrated
> later in the paper) that measuring the three channels reduces the
> systematic errors.
> •       173: the statistical error is here irrelevant. I would write “with
> a negligible statistical uncertainty”.
> •       200: is it appropriate to give here the principle of Cerenkov
> radiation and detection? I doubt it. If such considerations remain, then at
> least add what is the radiating “medium”.
> •       Fig. 4 caption, last sentence: I would use a dashed red line (in
> order not to be confused with a cut) and say “The dashed red line at … 25
> delineates the two regions with different CC cuts (see text).”
> •       223: “ratio of deposited energy over momentum as measured by the
> drift chambers”.
> •       230: why an asymmetric cut ?
> •       300: what is done if N_gamma > 2 ?
> •       Eq. 6: I did not understand why you go through the fit function
> and not just integrate the number of counts.
> •       338: M_X not defined. Would not it be useful to see the three
> spectra of ep->epiX ?
> •       Fig. 10: from this figure alone, the cut at z>0.4 seems arbitrary.
> But then why do you mention this cut here when you say after that you
> extract results for all z?
> •       Eq. 8 is wrong: it is sqrt(1-(P_e*A)^2) in the numerator.
> •       408: again, avoid % when talking about absolute error on
> asymmetries (as is rightly done in Table I).
> •       Eqs 14-15 trivial. I would not write them. A side question: the
> Monte-Carlo has polarization effect then? In view of the asymmetries, the
> differences in the number of counts is so small that it was bound to be a
> negligible effect.
> •       The figures of results are not very pretty. Not very nice for
> publication. Symbols, error bars, frame,….
> •       Fig. 17 caption: need to put the references to the published data.
> •       653: unless I read it too fast, this paper does not demonstrate
> that “the current measurement improves our understanding of these factors”,
> since we cannot pin down what is the contribution of each term. What about
> “the current measurement will contribute to our understanding of these
> factors”?
> (I do not mean to be negative about the significance of the measurement,
> just factual and optimistic for the future).
>
>


-- 
Kyungseon Joo
Professor of Physics
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~kjoo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20131113/6722fb12/attachment.html