[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Photoproduction of the f1(1285) Meson

[Reinhard Schumacher]

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your extensive comments on the CLAS f1 photoproduction
paper.We have implemented almost all of them.Since there are so
many we don't mention many of the minor corrections below, but for the
questions and a few other things we have answers embedded below.


I plan that the new draft of the paper will be ready in another couple 
of days

so you will be able to take a direct look at the changes made.



Best Regards,
Reinhard

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Reinhard,

I have read through your draft of the paper on the photoproduction of 
the f1 meson. This
was a very enjoyable read. My understanding of your approach and your 
analysis in this paper
were greatly aided by seeing your associated presentation at the CLAS 
Collaboration meeting.
My comments are included below. If you have any questions, let me know.


Regards,

Daniel

************************************************************************************
Page 1:
- Abstract:
- Line 2. Use "... from a proton target ...".
- Line 7. Use "... or a high-mass $N^*$ state, ...".
- Line 42. I suggest "This is significant since the results in this 
current work are
consistent with an intermediate value."
- General: You are not consistent with usage of speed of light unit 
throughout. I suggest
that you let c=1.

Page 2:
- Line 110. You should use "... the CLAS apparatus [28] ...". Ref. [28] 
does not belong after
the mention of g11a.
- Line 121. Use "Target temperature and pressure were ...".
- Line 132. Use "A set of 342 scintillators, 57 per sector, ...".
- Line 136. Use "... the detector varied from 0.5\% to 1\%.".

Page 3:
- Line 145. Use "... accumulated data simultaneously for many different 
...".
- Line 3 after Eq.(1). Use "... the measured time-of-flight, ...".
- Line 2 after Eq.(2). Use "... from the target to ...".
- Line 3 after Eq.(2). Use "... to the track hypothesis and ...".
- Line 161. Use "... in the CLAS TOF scintillators ...".
- Line 177. I do not understand the sentence "We required all three 
tracks to pass appropriate
...". For all charged hadrons that your detect in CLAS, don't you 
require them to pass
delta TOF requirements?

REPLY:We actually duplicated the approach taken by Williams et al in
their analysis of the g11 data.For the strong channels like p pi pi,
it was found to be sufficient to require just two of the three
particles to satisfy the PID cuts to get a very clean signal.That is
because there is always a chance that a particle either decays (the
pions) or gets deflected off its path (hit a wire or something).That
can mess up the PID of the track, even through the event is a "real"
event.However when reconstructing Kaons we need all the PID power we
can bring to bear.That is why the Kaon channels get the more
rigorous treatment.

Page 4:
- Line 227. I would actually think that showing the IM(ppi) and IM(pipi) 
plots would be
beneficial to this paper.

REPLY:The paper is already so long we decided to leave out this
level of detail.The secondary problem is that we don't have the
relevant figures at our disposal any more.

- Fig. 2. Why do you quote the W and cos theta bin for (a) and not
for (b)?

REPLY:We made the caption of the figure clearer that both panels
refer to the same kinematic bin.

- Line 233. Here "W" should be in math mode. Actually you should check 
through the paper as there
are several places where you leave W in rm font.
- Line 236. Use "... and using a quadratic polynomial ..."
- Line 236. "... over a 100 MeV range." In what variable?
- General: You switch back and forth throughout the paper between using 
$\Theta$ and using $\theta$.
Pick one and be consistent.
- General: In several places you use "Cos theta" instead of "cos theta". 
Please check through the
paper and make repairs.

Page 5:
- Line 249. What does "more favorably shaped" mean?

REPLY: replaced this with "smaller and less-rapidly changing"

- Line 262. MeV should be in rm font.
- Line 304. I suggest "... data for extraction of differential cross 
sections.".
- Line 313. Use "... GSIM [33]."
- General: If you are insistent on using speed of light in your units, I 
notice that sometimes
you write c in rm font and other times in math mode. Be consistent in 
your usage.

Page 6:
- Fig. 5 caption.
- Line 3. Use "A strong signal for ...".
- Line 4. Use "... and a slight hint ...".
- Line 6. Use "... of a minimum missing ...".
- Line 337. I suggest "... was generated followed by the subsequent ...".
- Line 340. Use "... mechanism [34].".

Page 7:
- Line 358. The construct beginning "Empirical testing [35] ..." is not 
a proper sentence. Also,
I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.

REPLY:This sentence was removed and the rest of the paragraph was
revised to better say what the point is here.

- Line 361. In the final state, put the baryon first in the listing for 
consistency with your
usage throughout.
- Line 4 of Section B. Use "... selection criteria, was ...".
- Line 370. Why "$N_{raw}$" and not "N_{gen}"? (also in Eq.(5)).

Page 8:
- Line 397. Use "... cross sections, as ...".
- Line 415. Use "... event yields, we varied ...".
- Line 450. Use "systematic uncertainty".
- Line 458. Use "... for the cross section calculation.".
- Line 459. Use "... of the photon flux, ...".
- Line 460. Use "... of the $\eta'$ yield ...".
- Line 473. Use "... [38], gives an ...".
- General: What about statistical uncertainties of the acceptance 
function? Are they properly
considered?

REPLY: They were included.But they were very small since we
generated over x10 the statistics from the data.

Page 9:
- Line 483. Use "... of the six CLAS sectors.".
- Line 486. Use "... method, we measured ...".
- Line 491. Use " ... $\eta'$ for the ...".
- Line 498. Use "... of the generated Monte ...".
- Line 504. Use "... for a possible systematic ...".
- Line 512. Use "... on the cross sections ...".
- Line 525. Use "Prior to presenting ...".
- Line 533. Use "... to obtain the cross sections.".
- Line 543. Use "... systematic uncertainty ...".

Page 10:
- Fig. 7.
- What are the error bars shown?
- Do these results agree within the quoted systematics?
- If they don't, does CLAS contradict itself?

REPLY:This figure was remake from scratch.One sees that the
Dickson and Williams results are in good agreement above 2.35 GeV
where it matters, since that is where we extract the f1 results.We
also have agreement with Dugger in two of the three lower energy
bins.We have general CLAS disagreement in the lowest W bin.We
don't discuss this here since it is not the focus of this paper.We
did not chase this discrepancy when we were doing our work.

Page 11:
- Line 549. "Similar agreement was found when comparing cross sections 
extracted from
the decay mode $\eta'$ ...". You should provide a reference to this 
other CLAS measurement.
- Line 550. Use "... for the differential cross section ...".
- Line 559. Use "A survey of ...".
- Line 602. Use "... with the width ...".
- Line 610. I suggest "... cross section into the $\eta \pi^+ \pi^-$ 
final state, ...".

Page 12:
- Line 622. Use "... in the angular coverage.".
- Line 627. Broken figure reference.
- Line 629. How were the different branches combined?

REPLY: the earlier part of the paragraph is trying to explain that.

- Line 636. Use "... in the production angle ...".
- Line 637. Use "... GeV (threshold ...".

Page 13:
- Line 664. Use "... final states [19],[48], but ...".

Page 14:
- Line 687. Use "... {\it et al.} [22] ...".
- Line 693. Open quotations are the wrong type.
- Line 709. Use " ... Huang {\it et al.} [23,49] (dotted black), ...".
- Line 723. Use "... perhaps a non- ...".

Page 15:
- Fig. 11 caption.
- Line 2. Use "The solid red line ...".
- Line 3. Use "... for the $f_1(1285)$ ... for the $\eta(1295)$.".
- Line 737. Use "Also, the results ...".
- General: Use "(Color online)" not "(color online)".

Page 16:
- Fig. 12 caption.
- Line 2. Use "The Kochelev {\it et al.} model prediction [21] ...".
- Line 3. Use "The model of Domokos {\it et al.} (dashed blue) ...".
- Line 4. Use "... [23,49] (dotted black) ...".
- Line 759. Use ".. 0.022. Even ...".
- Line 762. Notation problem with the Gamma ratio.
- Line 765. Use "... both the $f_1(1285) ...".
- Line 769. Notation problem with the Gamma ratio.
- Line 793. Use "cannot".

Page 17:
- Line 809.
- Line 834.
- Line 835.

Page 18:
- Table IV caption.
- Line 1. I suggest "Radiative decay$f_1(1285) \to \gamma \rho^0$ 
branching width
predictions compared to the CLAS ...".
- Fig. 13 caption.
- Line 1. What is $x(1280)$?
- Line 2. Use "The data is not yet corrected ...".

Page 19:
- Fig. 14 caption.
- Line 2. Use "The solid red curves ...".
- Line 1. Use "We define a slope, ...".
- Eq.(16). Add a comma after the equation.
- Line 855. Spurious parenthesis at end of line.
- Line 873. Use "... due to the finite ...".
- Line 874. Use ".. and the detector resolution."

Page 20:
- Fig. 15 caption.
- Line 3. Use "... subtracting the weighted ...".
- Line 938. End sentence with a period.

Page 21:
- Line 989. Be specific with which figures you are referencing.
- Eq.(20). Equation does not fit properly on the line.

Page 22:
- Eq.(24). Add a period after the equation.
- Line 1013. Use "... they are always close to unity.".
- Line 1036. Use "... emphasizing the $a_0$ peak.".

Page 23:
- Line 1092. Do not put parentheses about 3/2.
- Line 1095. Do not put parentheses about 9/2.

REPLY: We decided to put parenthesis around all these things,
including (1/2)^+.If this offends the copy editors at the journal,
we will let them fix it.

- Line 1110. Use "... strong bands, we proceeded ...".

Page 24:
- Line 1128. Use "... decay mechanisms.".
- Line 1144. Use "... decay mechanisms.".
- Line 1148. Typo on f1 mass.
- Line 1156. Missing units on Gamma.

Page 25:
- Line 1211. Do not put parentheses about 3/2.

Page 26:
- Line 1253. Add space before "Final States".
- Table V caption. Too wide for column.
- Table V. Values in table overlap.

REPLY: We have struggled for a long time trying to change the line spacing
and width of a table in the \longtable environment.If you know how
to do it, LET US KNOW!

- Line 1274. Use ".. differences were included in ...".
- Table VI caption. Too wide for column.
- Table VI. Values in table overlap.
- Is Appendix B necessary? What is the value added?

REPLY:Yes, if we had to shorten the paper, this would be the first
thing to go.On the other hand, we are showing these results in this
paper, so there is a chance someone would want the numbers.For now
we are leaving it in.

Page 28:
- References are not in standard form. You should not include title and 
if the
article is published, you should not give also the preprint number. 
Finally, if
there are more than 3 authors, use "{\it et al.}".

REPLY:Yes, they are in the mode that comes up automatically with
titles included.I actually prefer this when I read a paper.It is
only a matter of time before the journal adopts this as standard
practice.Our plan is to leave the titles in place for the arXiv
submission and let the journal editors axe them if they really want
them not there.

We did remove the superfluous arXiv references.

Page 30:
- Ref.[60] and ref. [38] are identical.

REPLY: Nice catch.

END OF FILE.



____________________________________________________________________
Reinhard Schumacher         Department of Physics, 5000 Forbes Ave.
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
phone: 412-268-5177         web: www-meg.phys.cmu.edu/~schumach
____________________________________________________________________


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20151101/3b4c3df2/attachment-0001.html>