[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 Peter et al.,
>
> This is a very nice analysis that has clearly been the result of a great
> deal of effort. Most of the typos I spotted have been highlighted by
> others, but here are a few additional comments:
>
> - The labelling of each experimental part (Table II, and text) is
> undoubtedly meaningful within the eg1b run group, but I am not sure is
> this helps the general reader. Might it be clearer to label them as
> sequential integers or letters?
FIXED, by explaining the nomenclature of existing names.

- The font sizes in figures 9-24 are probably too small for Phys Rev.
It might be worth increasing them before submission.
WILL WAIT FOR PRC feedback. I tried to make them exactly the min. size.
>
> - On some of the panels there are error bars in the asymmetries that cover
> more than the entire range. I have a big problem with that. Before you
> make a measurement what you know with absolute mathematical certainty is
> that the true value must be in the range [-1,1]. In other words the
> statistical support is only valid in that range. If you have error bars
> that are bigger than this range, it implies that you actually now know
> LESS that you did before the measurement, which is absurd. As these points
> add nothing to the comparison with the models, I would suggest that they
> be removed from the plots.
REMOVED. But to clarify, these are *not* raw asymmetries which of course
are bounded by [-1,1]. These are raw asymmetries divided by a small number
(call if f). so the actual bounds are [-1/f, 1/f]. In parity violation
experiments, we average missions of measurements (many of which ma violate
physics bounds) to get a meaningful averaged asymmetry. If we were to cut
out values that were outside the physics limits, we would bias the results
to the wrong answer.
>
> - Could you please add the following to the acknowledgments, to satisfy
> our grant condition on all co-authored publications:
> "United Kingdom's Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)"
DONE (automatic).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dave
>