[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Flavor Dependence of qq-bar Creation Observed in the Exclusive Limit

[Reinhard Schumacher]

Hello Mac and Kijun,

You draft letter looks quite nice.  While it is not as quantitative as
most of our CLAS papers, the qualitative result would be of interest
also to people outside the usual small community of hard-core electron
scatterers.  I think it has a decent chance to be accepted by PRL.  I
don't have any problem with the physics results you present.  The
methods and limitations are clear from the paper (modulo some comments
below). My more detailed comments are as follows:

line 11:  I don't understand what you mean by tunneling from a
harmonic oscillator potential.  This potential goes off to infinity,
so there is no possibility of a bound state tunneling out.  You must
be oversimplifying something here.

line 42: The last sentence here is a non-sequitur to what comes before
it. Also, "we decided to measure..."  seems a little weak.  How about
"In the low-energy exclusive limit, the flavor ratios of
electroproduced two-body final states (in which....created) were
measured in this experiment for the first time.  

line 47: what is the word "baryon" doing here?  Drop it, I think.

line 58: "rotation ANGLE of the"

line 125: This paragraph is one long meandering sentence.  It ought to
be broken up.  How about "Corrections for ... cuts were made.  Monte
Carlo simulations tuned to match the momentum resolution of the system
were used to account for..."   However you resolve this, get rid of
the comma after "technique", which makes no sense.

line 159: It is jarring that you introduce both figures at once.  You
force the reader to try to understand what is shown for two figures
before explaining what is going on.  It would be better to introduce
Fig 1 and explain what it shows.  For example, no where do you say
what the thin blue (green?) horizontal line is.  First discuss Fig 1, then
introduce Fig 2, and say what it shows.

Table2 caption: "acceptance HYPHEN corrected"

line 166: get GeV out of math expression

line 178: Here you explain your simple phenomenological idea for qqbar
production.  This is fine and necessary  in the context of what the
paper is about.  Instantly, though, people will think that there are
other production mechanisms in this kinematic range that you are
ignoring.  An example would be rho production.  To not mention this at
all in the paper seems like you are inviting that criticism.  
You could turn this lemon into lemonade by stating that you are using
the simplest possible production picture in part to test whether you
CAN get sensible results in the absence of other meson production
mechanisms.

line 193: Some notational problems here.  You introduce both "P" and
"script R" and then immediately drop them again.  Better would be to
either get rid of them altogether or introduce them earlier in the
article.  If you keep them, format them more clearly.  

line 200++ : replace "error" with "uncertainty" here and on other
places.

That's all for now. 
Reinhard