[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Target and Beam-Target Spin Asymmetries in exclusive Ï+ and Ïâ electroproduction with 1.6 to 5.7 GeV elec trons

[bosted at jlab.org]

Dear Sebastian,
> Here is a minor list of comments:
>
> line 19: "all spin asymmetries vanish in the absence of interference
> terms" - do you mean all SINGLE spin asymmetries? Because double spin
> asymmetries can persist even without interference, I think...
DONE
>
> line 34ff: Do we need to define all of these variables in terms of
> electron scattering and pion momentum kinematics? Or at least refer to a
> paper where they are defined? I see epsilon is actually defined later in
> an equation (unnumbered), but not Q2 and W.
RESPONSE: I'll put in definitions if PRC request them, but in the
past these have been considered as the fundemental variable in their
own right.
>
> The Eqs. below 2 and 3 (many unnumbered ones) are a bit confusing but I
> have to assume they are correct; however, I would define Px etc. with a
> factor |Pt| and explain that these are the components of the target
> polarization vector  in the hadronic plane. Similarly, I would multiply
> the expression for sigma_ez with a factor h or Pb to indicated the
> dependence on the beam helicity (or at least mention it).
 ANSWER: P_x, etc are NOT components of the target polarization vector,
rather they are the direction cosines. Wording changed to reflect this.
>
> l.45-47: The reader is left dangling - do you account for these effects?
> More generally, I would say that the equations are modified because of the
> Fermi motion and the deuteron WF (including D-state) as well as FSI such
> as charge-exchange reactions, and then state how (or not) you deal with
> these.
DONE. New paragraph is: "In the case of $\pi^-$ electroproduction from
polarized
deuterons, the above relations do not account for modifications
from the proper treatment of the
deuteron wave-function (including the D-state in particular)
as well as final state interactions (such as charge-exchange
reactions). These effects should be taken into account when
interpreting the asymmetries presented in this paper in terms
of reduced cross sections. "
>
> Table I: I think it would be easier to understand if the symbols FOLLOW
> the numbers, not vice versa.
DONE
>
> l. 85: I believe EG1b was in 2000-2001.
FIXED
>
> l.87ff: I wouldn't capitalize "Parts".
NOT DONE because Ad Hoc wanted it that way.

Also, 2250 A is 3/4, not 2/3 of max.
FIXED
>
> l. 99: Ref 22 is now published - PRC92, 055201 (2015). Maybe you could
> also point out that more detail on the experiment can be found in this and
> Rob's publication.
DONE
>
> Further comments will follow.
I DON'T SEEM TO HAVE GOTTEN THESE...

Yours, Peter

>