[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Measurement of the Differential and Total Cross Sections of gd -> K0 Lambda(p) Reaction within the resonance region
Daniel Carman
carman at jlab.org
Sat Feb 18 13:29:00 EST 2017
Dear Nicholas and Ken:
I have read through your draft of the g10/g13 K0-Lambda analysis and
include my comments below. If you have any questions, let me know.
Regards,
Daniel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General:
- You need to include a space before you list the reference. e.g. "... partial
wave analysis [2]."
- Many of your axis and plot labels are far too small in font size to be
readable. This includes Figs. 3, 4, 8, 16, 17. If you don't remake them now,
you will certainly have to remake them later.
- Put references in the order cited in the paper.
- Your data must be included into the CLAS physics database.
- You are not consistent throughout this draft with your notation for the different
hadrons. e.g. you use $K$, $K_S$, $K^0$, $K_S^0$. The same is true with your
notation for the final state Sigma baryons. Please review notation and be
consistent.
Page 1:
Title: Use "Measurement of the Differential and Total Cross Sections of the
$\gamma d \to K^0 \Lambda(p)$ Reaction with the Resonance Region"
Abstract:
- Line 5. Use "systematic uncertainties".
- Line 10. Use "This PWA analysis describes the data well without the ...".
Left Column:
Paragraph 1:
- Line 3. Use "... Particle Data Group (PDG) ..."
- Line 4. ".. high-precision data on many reaction channels ..." is a bit
misleading. I am objecting to the word "many". I would suggest to state
"... due in part to high-precision data from photon-beam facilities ...".
- Line 6. Use "... partial wave analyses.".
Paragraph 2:
- Line 4. Use "... couplings of $N^*$'s to the ...".
Right Column:
Paragraph 1:
- Line 4. Use "... in experiments and are commonly referred to ...".
Paragraph 2:
- Line 3. Use "photon-induced"
Paragraph 3:
- Line 10. Use "... incident electron energy ($E_0$) ...".
Page 2:
Fig. 1 caption. Line 3. Typo on "scattered".
Left Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 2. Use "... target and produced a ...".
- Line 12. Use "... original event in the offline ...".
Right Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 6. Use "... with a 4~cm maximum diameter.".
Paragraph 2.
- Line 3. Use "... where event rates were the largest. The torus current in ...".
- Use "A" for ampere units throughout this paragraph and the next.
- Line 13. Use "... pions were bent towards ...".
- Line 13. The part "... resulting in the possibility ... outer TOF wall" makes no
sense to me. This is a very awkward construct. Please review.
Paragraph 3.
- Line 7. "Very good luminosity" needs to be made more quantitative..
- Line 11. Use "a 40-cm-long unpolarized ...".
- Line 12. Use "... for g13a".
- Line 18. Use "... low-momentum $\pi^-$'s that ...".
Page 3:
Fig. 3.
- Use "p" for proton, not "p+". Also the labels on the color figures themselves
are nearly invisible.
- Caption. Line 1. Use "A very small subset of ..."
- Is this g10 or g13 data?
- You should describe the source of the 2 ns separation of bands.
Left Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 5. Use "... magnetic field, and torus magnet polarity.".
Paragraph 2.
- Line 2. Use "... make their direct detection ...".
- Line 9. Use "These corrections ...".
Paragraph 3.
- Line 1 after eq.1. D is not defined completely.
- Line 2 after eq.1. Use "... of the particle, and ...".
- Line 4 after eq.1. Use "... the TOF time and the event start time."
- Line 6 after eq.1. Use "Fig. 3 shows a ...".
Right Column:
Paragraph 2.
- Line 6. Use "... two $\pi^-$'s was the ...".
- Line 14. Use "... event existed) ...".
Paragraph 3.
- Line 3. Use "... tracks needed to be ...".
- Line 4. Use "... particles passed through ...".
- Line 6. Use "... momentum of each track ...".
- Line 8. Use "... sag of the tagger focal plane [5], respectively.".
- Line 9. Use "... tagger counters and time-of-flight paddles.".
- Line 11. Begin a new paragraph with the sentence "Every particle that ...".
- Line 13. Use "... that corresponded to ...".
Page 4:
Left Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 5. Use "... different magnetic fields and target locations.".
Paragraph 2.
- Last line. Use "... , respectively.".
Fig. 4 caption. Use "The invariant mass of the ...".
Fig. 5 caption. Use "The invariant mass of the ...".
Right Column:
Fig. 6 caption. The sentence "The lower left corresponds to the $K^0\Lambda$
channel, while the other two are the ..." is awkward in its construction. The
"other two" what? Please improve this.
Paragraph 2.
- Line 8. Use "... contributions can be ...".
- Line 10. Use "GeV"
Page 5:
Left Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Last line. Use "... overlap of these signals.".
Paragraph 2.
- Line 7. Use "... by fitting the simulated ...".
- Line 8. Use "... $K_s\Sigma^0$ spectrum after it ...".
Right Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 2. Use "... were detected.".
- Line 3. Use "... that were detected were the ...".
- Line 6. Use "The first category was a five ...".
- Line 8. Use "... processes was from a ...".
Paragraph 2.
- Line 6. Add a space before "Near the missing ...".
Paragraph 3.
- Line 1. Use "... background could not be separated ...".
- Line 2. Use "... as this still produced a peak ...".
- Line 16. Use "... events represented the data ...".
- Line 18. Use "... were significantly reduced ...".
Paragraph 4.
- Line 3. Use "... was generated for the ...".
- Line 4. Use "... background channels - the ...".
- Line 7. Use "... channels, which reflected their extremely low ...".
Page 6:
Left Column:
Fig. 8 caption.
- Line 2. Use "... (\gamma p)$ from simulation.".
- Line 5. Use "... that was parameterized ...".
- Line 7. Use "... that were missing only ...".
Paragraph 1.
- Line 2. Use "... were the primary source ..."
- Line 4. Use "... mechanisms could contribute.
- Line 5. Strike the awkward sentence "One could imagine ...". This does not belong.
- Line 9. Use "... either the $K^0$ or $\Lambda$ peaks. This channel could produce ...".
- Line 12. Use "... if there were other similar ...".
Paragraph 2.
- Line 2. Use "... particles were directly ...".
- Line 6. I do not know what you mean by "it can be modeled as random".
- Line 11. Use "... events were not in the region ...".
- Line 12. Use "... that did pass the limiting cuts matched ...".
Paragraph 3.
- Line 3. Use "... background created ...".
- Line 4. Use "... that were only missing ...".
- Line 5. Use "... proton were found in ...".
- Line 7. Use "... subtraction was used ...".
Right Column:
Fig. 9.
- The K0 has Gaussian tails that extend into Region 1 and Region 3. I am concerned
that the peak under the proton from Region 1+3 in the lower part of your figure
are good events that you have not accounted for. In this case you have underestimated
your event yields.
- Caption.
- Line 4. Use "... background contributed to any ...".
- Line 6. Use "$x$-axis".
Paragraph 1.
- Line 5. Use "... overestimate of the $K^0\Lambda$ ...".
Page 7:
Left Column:
Paragraph 2.
- Line 4. Use "... into the same energy bin ...".
- Line 6. Use "... from the analysis ...".
- Line 10. Use "... 3\% in the normalized yield ...".
- Line 13. Use "... (see Tables I and II)."
Paragraph 3.
- Line 9. Use "... code that uses ...".
- Line 12. I can make no sense of the sentence "The reliability of the simulated
events ...". Please revisit.
- Line 22. The statement "it modifies the tracks to represent inefficiencies ..." is
awkward. Please clarify. Also, use past tense consistently (I have been trying to
catch this so far).
- Line 23. Use "... the CLAS detector system ...".
- Line 24. Use "... it smeared the track path through the drift ...model the position
uncertainty ...".
- Next to last line. Use "... with the addition of ...".
Paragraph 4.
- Line 3. Use "... selecting the photon ...".
Right Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 6. Use "... analysis was described ...".
- Line 2 after eq.4. Use "Lambda".
- Line 4 after eq.4. Use "... represented the Fermi ...".
- Last line. Use "... described the process in ...".
Paragraph 2.
- Subsection G. Use "Systematic Uncertainties".
- Line 2. Use "... includes uncertainties in the target and detector geometries, and ...".
- Line 9. Use "... were poor.".
Page 8:
Left Column:
Fig. 11. Caption. Use "The missing momentum distribution of ...".
Paragraph 1.
- Line 1. Use "... in Tables I and II.". These were separated into broad ...".
- In Tables I and II what is meant by the category "Detector".
Paragraph 2.
- I am not satisfied with the discussion in Section IV A as it comes across as awkward and
loose. Please revisit and reconsider.
- Line 2. Use "... channels (two examples are shown in Fig. 12). What are these models?
Without some discussion, they are just "window dressing" without any real content.
Right Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 6. Use "$t$-channel".
- Line 9. Use "... that would not only ...".
Paragraph 2.
- Line 3. Use "$s$-channel".
- What are you trying to say by "It should be noted here that not only is
$\gamma n \to N^*$ different from that of $\gamma p \to N^*$"?
- Line 12. Use "... that incorporated ...".
- You bring up the notion of the two BnGa solutions, but you have said a word
about these solutions. What states and mechanisms are included in these fits,
how do the fit results (chi2, partial widths, couplings, masses, ...) vary between
the fits. As this is presented, it is very much content free.
Paragraph 3.
- eq.6 On l.h.s. use "\cos"
- Line 3 after eq.6. Use "... is the CLAS acceptance, and ...".
- Line 5 after eq.6. Use ".. \pi^+\pi^-$, and $\Lambda \to \pi^-p$).".
- What do you mean by "Although $W$ could be found for each event, the photon flux ..."?
What does computing W have to do with photon flux? Also the rest of this paragraph
is written in a very awkward manner. I have no idea what this median Egamma is all
about.
- What about bin centering for your cos theta variable?
Page 9:
Left Column:
Fig. 12 caption. Line 1. "Two available kaon ...".
Fig. 13 is not adequately described in the paper. There is no discussion of what is
shown. This needs attention. Also gamma + d is not equivalent to gamma + n. Some
clarification in the paper is necessary with regard to this. How do you consider
final state interactions?
Paragraph 2.
- Line 4. Use "In Fig. 15, ...".
Right Column:
Line 7. Use "... (two of the main ...".
Line 9. Kaon-Maid should be given a reference here.
Lines 14,17. Use "$t$-channel".
Page 10:
- Energy units on subplots are two small and need units.
- Caption. Use "statistical uncertainties".
Page 11:
Caption.
- Line 1. Use "... cross sections as a ... for each bin in ...".
- Line 4. Use "... statistical and systematic ...".
Page 12:
Left Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 5. What are you trying to say with "Although more difficult, a reasonable ..."?
Paragraph 2.
- Use "Legendre polynomial" throughout this section.
- Line 1 after bullets. Use "... data well and be assumed to have a realistic behavior
near ...".
- Line 5 after bullets. Notation is confusing. How about ".. in the range of
$\cos \theta_{CM}^K^0$ from -1 to 1.
- Line 11 after bullets. Use "... uncertainty estimates ...".
Paragraph 3.
- Line 1. Use "Previous analyses of $\gamma p \to K^+\Lambda (give suitable references) have
shown that there is at least one $s$-channel resonance necessary to describe the data that
was not observed from analyses of pion data.".
- Line 4. Broken figure reference.
- Lines 12,14. Use "$t$-channel".
Right Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 1. Use "... cross sections of ... \Lambda(p)$ have been ... two different CLAS
experiments, ...".
Paragraph 2.
- Line 1. Use "that can be ..."
Page 13:
Left Column:
Paragraph 1.
- Line 7. Use "$s$-channel".
Paragraph 2.
- What are you thanking yourselves in the acknowledgments? Klempt et al. are listed as
lead authors already.
Right Column:
- Tables III and IV have too many significant figures.
- Appendix A is not referenced in the text.
- Table III and IV captions should read "GXX differential cross sections.".
References:
- Ref. 4 is incomplete.
- Do not include a comma after last author and before "et al.".
- Do not include archive number if paper is published.
- Ref. 15 is not a CLAS Collaboration paper.
- Refs. 18, 19, 22, 23. Use (CLAS Collaboration).
- Ref. 19. Use "Jefferson Lab PAC30 Proposal".
- Refs. 20, 21. Use "CLAS analysis note".
- URLs are needed for all CLAS notes or CLAS analysis notes.
- Ref. 23. Use "CLAS-Note".
- Ref. 24 is incomplete.
- Ref. 25 is incomplete.
- Ref. 26 is incomplete. Also M. Holtrop is not the creator of GSIM.
- Ref. 29 is not cited in the text. Plus it is incomplete as it points to nothing.
More information about the Clascomment
mailing list