OPT-IN:Target and Double Spin Asymmetries of Deeply Virtual Ï0 Production with a Longitudinally Polarized Proton Target and CLAS

[Sebastian Kuhn]

Line 172: You say "a constant dilution factor was applied". Why not use the measured ratio between the total number of events in the peak and the extrapolated 12C background, separately for each bin? Or at least a parametrization thereof? At least, you should quote the value of the "constant" dilution factor used and give some estimate how much it could vary from bin to bin.
Line 215: "from 2.5sigma TO 3.5 sigma".
Lines 220-223: 3% seems quite small, given that Pb alone already has an uncertainty of 2%/84% = 2.4%. What is the uncertainty in PbPt? (Not only the count rate uncertainty from elastic scattering, but also systematic uncertainty from kinematics, form factor models, dilution in the elastic channels etc.)?
Fig. 3 caption: rows and columns are switched. Also, the systematic uncertainty bands show big bumps that must be larger than 4.5% -> explanation?
Lines 244-256: I understand the AUUcosphi is very hard to constrain, but did you vary it within expected range and check the corresponding systematic uncertainties for the extracted AUL and ALL moments? Also, did you use any constraints from the known ALU and AUUcos2phi? Do you get similar results?
GENERAL REMARK: Only 2 bins in x and Q2 may be a bit coarse. Most of the results seem to have small enough error bars to allow up to 4 bins (smaller bins in x). Just a suggestion - you be the judge.
Fig. 4: Explain more carefully the systematic uncertainty bands. They look bigger than the quoted 4.5%, so I assume they do contain some uncertainty from the fit? (i.e., cross talk between numerator and denominator)
Line 278: "GL" -> "GGL"