[Clascomment] OPT-IN: First CLAS12 measurement of DVCS beam-spin asymmetries in the extended valence region

[Daria Sokhan]

Dear Sebouh,

Thank you for your careful reading of the article and for your comments!
Please see answers below.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 22:56, Sebouh Paul <sebouh.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The paper looks good for the most part, though I have a small suggestion
> if this isn't too much to ask.  I didn't see a link to the supplementary,
> so idk if you already included it there.  I'd be curious to see how the
> sine moment of the asymmetry varies with respect to the kinematics; for
> instance, you could show the sine moment with one variable on the x axis,
> separated into panels with another variable, and use colors/symbols to
> represent the third variable.  If you see any interesting trends, you could
> provide commentary on them.  By eye, it looks like the sine moment is in
> the range of about 0.3 to 0.4 for the bins shown, which is larger than the
> ~20% that you mention in line 53 for the previous measurements.  I'm not
> sure if this should go in the paper itself or if it belongs in the
> supplementary.
>

-- there are four kinematic variables, xB, Q2, t and phi, and the data
which will go into the databases will be provided for each kinematic bin
for all four variables. For neighbouring phi-bins in a given xB-Q2-t bin,
the xB-Q2-t kinematics are not constant. For this reason we choose not to
extract sine moments, as this would smear over this variation, and we do
not want to make phenomenological conclusions without a robust study. A
full phenomenological analysis would make use of the entire data-set,
including the binning in phi, so we prefer to leave this to a later study,
which can be done using the published data.


> 21, 34: is this the same as the Bjorken x?  elsewhere you have xB


-- The x here is the longitudinal momentum fraction carried by the parton,
which we define. In the case of DIS, this is indeed equal to Bjorken-x, but
that is not the case for DVCS. When we first use xB, we also define it, so
there is no confusion.

15, 16: ... including the compposition of its spin and the pressure
> distributions ...  (missing two "the"s)
>

-- thanks, added and we also shortened the sentence somewhat.


> 21:  add "the" before "nucleon momentum"
>

-- done


> 55:  italicize H.
>

-- done


> 68:  unitalicize H2.  In Latex, H$_2$ instead of $H_2$.


-- done


> 68:  Also, add hyphen between "liquid" and "H$_2$"
>

-- done


> 161: bin-by-bin
>

-- done


> 188:  I assume tmin is the minimum allowed value of t that is allowed for
> xB and Q^2, correct?  Could you mention this and add the formula?


-- exactly, we added a few words to make this explicit but we're right at
the limit of the PRL word allowance and an equation adds a lot of "word
weight", so we would prefer to leave it without the equation for now.


>  230: partial-wave (hyphen)
>

-- done


> 270:  could be less awkwardly worded: "Although it has similar kinematics
> to the...’


-- we were trying to minimise words here... we'd prefer to leave the
current form and see what the journal reviewers say.


> Fig 5.  why are the data with the 10.2 GeV beam missing?
>

-- out of aesthetics -- the plot became too cluttered so we removed the
open circles representing the 10.2 GeV data (attached is the version with
both -- they agree very well). On balance, we prefer the cleaner version of
the plot, without the 10.2 GeV points.

Many thanks,
Daria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20221018/702f3979/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fig5_firstpanel_alldata.png
Type: image/png
Size: 49147 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20221018/702f3979/attachment-0001.png>