[Clascomment] OPT-IN: Beam-Target Helicity Asymmetry E in K+ÎŁâ Photoproduction on the Neutron

[nicholas]

Dear Reinhard, 

Thank you for your feedback! I think I have now address your comments in the paper..

The 50% of true yield was estimated based on GSIM simulations. This includes events in which the Kaon decayed in flight. The simulation also takes into account the fermi motion of the target nucleon and the missing-mass cuts are taylored to cut significantly on that (indirectly). Events are also removed from PID cuts as we opted to keep these quite tight, which significantly reduces misidentified kaons (the 50% reflects all cuts combined — not just the missing-mass cuts). We have done extensive studies on all these cuts and the optimal cuts allow us to keep background contributions to minimum — which significantly simplifies the analysis. 
I will think about a better way of formulating the sentence in the paper.

Really appreciate your comments. 

Best regards, 
Nick

 

> On 4 Mar 2020, at 21:40, Reinhard Schumacher <schumacher at cmu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear Nick, et al.,
> 
> Here are my comments on the "Beam-Target Helicity Asymmetry E in
> K+Sigma- Photoproduction in the Neutron" paper.
> 
> First of all, congratulations on getting the tremendous amount of work
> done on this channel to converge to this fine paper.    I think it
> will have real impact.   In fact, given the the Bonn Gatchina people
> have already "digested" the results, we see that this measurement has
> been worthwhile.
> 
> Here are some small recommendations:
> 
> Fig 1 caption:  replace "three-dimensional" with "perspective", which
> is closer to what you want to express
> 
> Line 199, Fig.2 caption, and Reference 40:  It is confusing that you use
> the letter "X" for both missing items.  They are not the same thing.
> I suggest replacing "X" with "Y" when the missing this has to be a
> hyperon.   For instance, if the Fig. 2 caption, line 1, replace "X" by
> "Y", but leave the "X" alone in line 2.  There may be a few other
> places to make this change.
> 
> Line 220:  It is surprisng that only 50% of the true yield is left.
> Why so little?   Fig 2 is a log-z plot, and from it I might guess
> you keep much more than 50%.   Can this be explained better?    Do you 
> really have to throw so much away?
> 
> Line 331:  It seems awkward to introduce Fig. 5 within a parenthetic
> statement.   I suggest removing the parentheses and making the
> statement a stand-alone sentence.
> 
> Fig. 5 caption:  "...dashed red full lines..." ??   Also, the blue
> lines do not look dotted to me on a regular screen or on paper
> (unless I look very closely).
> 
> Page 6, column 2, line 6:  "missinG"
> 
> Good luck with this paper.
> 
> Reinhard
>