[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Beam-Target Helicity Asymmetry E in K0Lambda and K0Sigma0 Photoproduction on the Neutron

[Alexandre Deur]

Dear Reinhard,

As a core member of the HDice target program, I should have sent you my comments earlier. I am sorry about sending them late. My comments are numerous but minor, except the one for lines 420-421 (inconsistent conclusion compared to lines 361-362).

Best regards,

Alexandre

The first number indicates the line.

3: remove "and" 

5: N.K. Walford. space missing between N. and K.

3-5 most institutions superscripts are missing

5th line of the abstract: remove the superfluous "model" in "model predictions from the KaonMAID, SAID, and Bonn-Gatchina models", since we state they are models 8 words later.

20 coma after "regime"?

33 remove superfluous "only"

36 add "(PWA)" after "partial wave analysis" since the acronym is used later without being defined (e.g. line 44)

48 remove superfluous "complex". In Quantum Physics, amplitudes are complex numbers. 

49 sections -> section

52-53: For better clarity, I would remove the comas before W and before cos$\theta_{c.m.}$ I would remove as well the "cos" since cos$\theta_{c.m.}$ is not an angle while we name it that.

68 hyperons -> hyperon

89-90 the KaonMAID model -> KaonMAID

90 Grammar says that "predictions" should refer to KaonMAID but the reference [38] indicates it is SAID. Maybe add "SAID" before "predictions" 

106 Should we specify that the deuteron polarization is the vector polarization (not the tensor polarization)? 

113 Was the target polarization flipped (RF operations) or rather rotated (magnetic field operations)?

2nd and 3rd lines above Eq. (4) (they are not numbered): is it okay to use "lab" rather laboratory? 

137 consist -> consists

147 the mathematical script used here and the normal script for the TOFs line 143 are inconsistent

147-148 Is "events of which the two positively charged particles were the proton" correct? Maybe "event FOR which" ?

149 "were both the pi^-" -> were both pi^- ?

154 "dilute the measurement" -> "dilute E" (since unpolarized material don't dilute yields but rather increase them, and "measurement" is not specific).

156 remove "frozen" (so that it is not ambiguous that there could be liquid or gaseous HD in the empty target)

171 result -> results ? (it is the "presence" that "results" in the tail)

Fig. 1 caption: Remove (BG), since the acronym is not used in the article.

174 Instead of the negative-sounding "Because of the rather low statistics in this experiment", I would use the more positive "Because of the small reaction cross section" 

224 "Two things should be noted..." does not sound formal enough for an article. Maybe "It should be noted in Figs. 1 and 3 that, firstly..." or something like that would be better?

237 "negative pions" -> $\pi^-$, to be consistent with the general style of the article (see also lines 76, 144, 241 for possible changes). Similarly, the next sentence use the greek letter for the kaon and the full latin name for the hyperon. (There are other of such instances in the paper than can be corrected if you think it is important enough).

252-253 Instead of the negative-sounding "We address this issue below", maybe "This is addressed (or "corrected") below"?

253 remove "simple"

Fig. 4 caption "events rejected events" -> "events rejected"

Fig. 5 caption: off -> of in "The distribution of missing mass off the reconstructed" ? Also, should "distribution" be pulral? (Two are shown).

Fig. 6 caption off -> of in ""The distribution of missing mass off" ?

Two lines below Eq. 7, I would remove the not very useful "bound in deuterium", to make the sentence easier to digest.

Three lines above Eq. 8, of Eq. 4 -> in Eq. 4 (or more concisely, "numerator of Eq. 4)

294 need not -> needs not

294 aligned to -> aligned with ?

297 a [...] momenta -> a [...] momentum (or remove "a")

310 need -> needs

312 Following this paper -> Following Ref. [56]

Lines 314-315 are stating something trivial from the previous statements. They could be removed.

329 tabulated results of Table I -> results in Table I (tabulated and table are somewhat redundant)

332 result -> results (it is usually used in plural in the paper, e.g. the title of the section, the line just above. There are other instances of result used in singular, e.g. line 319)

333 one of the two "energy" could be removed. Same line 335.

350 partial wave analyses (PWA) -> PWA (the acronym was already defined earlier)

Fig. 7 caption. remove ", as shown" ? Or maybe a piece of sentence is missing? Same question regarding Fig. 8's caption.

362 Remove "among the three". 

Regarding the comparison with the models, would it be useful to indicate values of Chi^2 (after removing the theta_c.m bin-to-bin correlated errors)? It is not obvious to me that SAID is slightly favored. I would have thought that BnGa looks slightly better.

375 "for the following reason:" -> "because"

401-402 This was already stated lines 329-330

416 Instead of the negative-sounding "this analysis is limited by low statistics for", maybe "this analysis is limited by the small cross sections of"

420-421 You stated the opposite conclusion that SAID looked the best lines 361-362.

434 observable -> observables

435 has -> have (refers to data)