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

[Stepan Stepanyan]

Peter,

Thanks for the reply and for accommodating my questions.

Stepan

On 3/2/16 7:40 PM, bosted at jlab.org wrote:
> Thanks for your comments! Peter
>
>> line 21 - paragraph, should reference appear at the end of the citation,
>> [11] should go after
>> "W>2 GeV", before period, and [12] at the end of sentence, after "lab".
> FIXED
>
>> line 75 - 2% for momentum resolution is too high, according to CLAS NIM
>> paper it is ~1%
> THIS is for z=0: we had z=-55 cm plus 5T, and 2250 A, all making
> resolution worse than in NIM paper
>
>> line 77 - the azimuthal angle resolution is 4 mrad, not 3
> FIXED
>
>> line 89 - the max current for torus is 3840A
> FIXED
>
>> line 101 - too many "the" before "subject" FIXED
>> line 107 & 108 - these two sentences has nothing to do with data
>> processing, what is the meaning? THEY SEEM RELEVANT TO ME.
>> line 133 - "67&" must be corrected, this probably should be 0.27 or 27%
> FIXED
>
>> line 138 - this sentence should be rewritten, it is not clear what it
>> means "time-of-arrival at the SC bank" REWORDED
>> line 144 - why this requirement of 0.3 GeV for neutrons? did you really
>> cut this high in energy? YES. The reason for the requirement is that
> the skim files had all lower energies cut away for some reason, and
> I could not re-make the skim files.
>
>> line 156 - kinematic cuts and dilution factor. ?
>> line 190 - states that electron-proton missing mass should be equal to the
>> pion mass, by the way sentence missing "be" and "to" I think. Then missing
>> mass squared distributions are shown, Fig.3, and cuts are defined
>> on missing mass squared as 0.11 to 0.15 GeV^2. The mass squared of the
>> pion is 0.02 GeV^2, needs explanations why the cut range is so out of
>> range. FIXED. Should have been -0.11.
>> line 259 - parenthesis is missing at the end of the line FIXED
>> line 293 - have you tested how much the final results will change if
>> instead of 32 parameter fit have only
>> few parameters only, just a smooth fit without resonance structure. Is it
>> clear why fit to fully exclusive final
>> state does not show resonance structure (red curves). There is a huge
> improvement in chi2 when resonances are included for the non exclusive
> case. For exclusive case, error bars much bigger so resonances don't show
> up very clearly, and too many parameters makes fit 'run away".
>
>> line 367 - there should be some thing (noun) after "elastic" either
>> "scattering" or "events" or "scattering events" FIXED
>> page 25 - no reference to Table VIII in the text FIXED
>> Table VIII - how "Total" in the table was calculated, some of them are
>> squared sum of three independent
>> errors, but some are not. For example for pi- (lower table), 2.5 GeV
>> A_{LL}, sqrt(0.07^2+0.12^2+0.02^2)=0.14,
>> not 0.12 as in the table and there are many like that
> FIXED
>
>> line 390 - "From 6" means Eq.(6), so it should be "From Eq.(6)"
> FIXED
>
>> line 393 - missing period at the end FIXED
>> line 413 - should it be "electron-proton missing mass" ? instead of
>> "electron-pion" IT IS CORRECT AS WRITTEN (distinguishes
> M from M + Mpi).
>
>> line 427 - just want to make sure that the text files will be attached to
>> this paper YES, for arxiv. Will adjust for PRC.
>> line 429 - the first 3 sentence, at least, of this paragraph should be
>> under "Results", section V, not under V.A FIXED
>> line 434 - is this binning strategy only for e\pi^+n? what is the binning
>> for \pi^-? YES
>> line 443 - should be Q^2 FIXED
>> line 446 - "fits ARE not bad ..." and "but are considerably ..."
> FIXED
>
>