[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Measurement of the Differential and Total Cross Sections of gd -> K0 Lambda(p) Reaction within the resonance region

[Stepan Stepanyan]

- p1, left column, 2nd paragraph, line 5 from the bottom "K^0 has neutral CHARGE" not "change"
- p1, right column, 2nd paragraph, the first sentence is awkward, contribute to what
- p2, left column, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, it is correct to say within the target not within CLAS
- p2, right column, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line, phrase "The magnetic current ..." is wrong, change it
to "The torus had two different current settings, +2250 A and +3375A". Then discard the next sentence.
- p2, right column, 2nd paragraph, 5th line from the bottom, it is not only in these two settings, but
always positive polarity means negatively charged particles bent towards beam line. Consider revising
the sentence
- p2, right column, last paragraph, why talk about g13b at all if it is not used in the analysis, especially
when we provide no explanation to why collimation made cross section analysis difficult, what means
difficult? or impossible? Better to drop mention of g13b.
- p2, right column, last paragraph, wrong phrase "for both g13a." which both, it should just be "for g13."
After that sentence, need a space after period and "The target ..."
- p2, right column, last paragraph, OK, at the end it looks like only subset of g13a data were used. So,
why not to just drop all g13a and g13b explanations and simply say at the beginning
"In this analysis subset of g13 data are used with circularly polarized photons that were generated using electron beam of 2.65 GeV. The torus magnet current was set to -1497 A to have larger efficiency for low energy $\pi^-$s that bend away from the beam line, in contrast to g10's positive polarity." 
 By the way, here you use "Amp" while above in g10 section it is "Amps" and used "beamline" instead
of "beam line" as above, better be consistent
- p3, left column, 1st paragraph, 4th line, phrase "tagger spectrum of energies" is incorrect, may be
"the tagged photon energy spectra". At the end of the sentence better say "magnetic field value and polarity."
- p3, left column, 2nd paragraph, very awkward first sentence, is there detector that can detect K^0 and
\Lambda directly? Why CLAS is kind of singled out here. words "with CLAS" must be removed.
- p3, left column, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, change to "Having no particles detected directly from the reaction production vertex required ..."
- p3, left column, last paragraph, definition of "D" is incomplete, it should explain "path" to where?
- p3, right column, what it means "iteratively fit"?
- p3, right column, end of second paragraph "and therefore was used ..." what was used? very unclear
statement
- p3, right column, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence I think it should be either "decay particle" or just "tracks", "decay particle tracks" seems wrong
- p3, right column, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence, how DC inefficiency causes momentum be wrong?
we do momentum correction because of uncertainties in magnetic field - DC geometry relation, is not it?
- the same paragraph, "poor tagger bins" is a bad expression, reader does not know what means tagger bins
- the same paragraph, "all tracks that correspond to the edges" mat be "all the tracks that are reconstructed close to the edges"
- p5, name of subsection "1" "Five track background", why five tracks, which are these five tracks? if this are pi+pi-pi-p\gamma ? What are other 5-track channels? These are really Channel with five decay particles, is not it
- p5, right column, 2nd paragraph, need space "particle. Near" on line 6
- p5, last paragraph, it starts with "these reaction channels" but it is not clear what it refers to
- p6, left column, 1s paragraph, line 8, it should be "wide MASS distribution"
- p8, right column, 2nd paragraph, what is "BnGa" group, this is used only here and no explanations, is this Bonn-Gatchina group, some places it is referred as BonnGa, all references must be consistent
- p8, right column, 2nd paragraph, the 3rd sentence addresses N*->K^0\Lambda, is this not the same
as the end of sentence one after the next?
- p8, it is kind of strange to describe high level fits to the cross sections and have a figure (Fig.13) then
describe how cross sections were obtained. I suggest to move discussion of fits after cross section part
- p9, right column, line 6, how field map can have effect on the discrepancy?
- p12, left column, 1st paragraph, what last sentence means, more difficult then what, differential cross sections?
- p12, left column, 3rd paragraph, missing figure "Fig. ??"

Stepan