[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Suppression of neutral pion production in deep-inelastic scattering off nuclei with the CLAS detector
Taisiya Mineeva
mineeva at jlab.org
Thu Jun 1 22:12:23 EDT 2023
Dear Lamiaa,
Many thanks again for your detailed comments, both for the current paper
draft and in regards to further submission to PRL. They greatly helped to
polish already polished paper after all the comments that arrived earlier.
I implemented your suggestions and corrections, please, see the latest
version attached. I leave some comments below; the comments that were
directly corrected in the paper are omitted in the below response.
- Please make sure to be consistent with the verb tense used throughout the
> manuscript and don't switch back and forth between present and past tenses.
> You may avoid that e.g. by using the passive voice to refer to what
> happened in the past for some instances.
>
This issue was fixed throughout the paper.
> - Please avoid using the speaker pronouns (we, our...) as that can be
> avoided by using the passive voice. This should be applied everywhere in
> this manuscript except for the abstract and acknowledgment section if
> needed.
The paper was restructured to substitute numerous uses of 'we' with passive
voice (except for the abstract).
> - Regardless of the nice review of theoretical models included in the
> paper, the results of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are presented without any
> theoretical curves, even GiBUU is not considered here. Thus, I wonder why?
> P.S.: Based on my PRL lambda paper experience, the external reviewers
> asked to include more theoretical predictions of the results, similar to
> the published charged pions results, and just because of the complication
> of developing new models of lambda production channel and the time needed
> for it, we were able to convince the PRL referees that is not feasible for
> the timeline of the current publication. In this spirit, as mentioned
> above, I am also curious to know why no theoretical curves are included in
> these results.
Good point, Dan also asked a similar question. My earlier response to the
question on the theoretical curves was as following:
"We purposely did not include any model predictions in this paper,
publishing it à la HERMES (2011) two-fold results:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epja/i2011-11113-5.
Yes, preliminary GiBUU predictions on pi0 exist, they were done along with
charged pions predictions published earlier. However, they do not explain
the difference in Cronin effect between pi0 and charged pions that we
observe in our data. Nor does the other model (Guiot-Kopeliovich) used in
charged pion publication; it does not contain ingredients that would
differentiate between three pion states. We intend to collect a larger body
of model predictions to publish a conclusive explanation..."
Yes, GiBUU predictions on Lambda are included in PRL. They are either
consistent with the data trend (multiplicities) or are off (pT2
broadening), both of the cases are important indications of the underlying
dynamics. In my case, GiBUU predictions alone would not be enough to
explain the difference between charged pions and neutral pions' Cronin
effect and nuclear ordering. More theoretical insights are needed as well
as more careful treatment of the GiBUU for pi0s. This should be the topic
of the next publication.
> - I believe you will have to remove the sections titles before submitting
> the paper to PRL as I don't think this is the current standard PRL format
> if I am not mistaken (at least titles were not used in the CLAS lambda
> paper and we were not asked to add them!)
>
Indeed, the section titles were foreseen to be removed when submitting the
paper to the PRL. I have removed them now since it is the last round of
collaboration-wide comments of the paper draft before final comments from
the ad hoc committee.
- PRL is accepting supplemental material, thus I suggest that you produce
> one similar e.g. to the lambda PRL paper in which you will include all
> \pi^0 invariant mass distributions, results for various kinematical bins,
> description of particle ID, background subtraction of \pi^0 invariant mass,
> corrections, systematic studies and their tables as well as tabulated
> twofold and threefold results of figures 2 and 3. Referring to the thesis
> which some of its results have been updated/changed during the advanced
> analysis review stages is not enough.
>
Yes, I agree, supplemental materials are previewed to be provided; they are
not ready yet but planned to be based on the tables of the final results
currently available in the analysis note only. I will bear in mind your
comments for what should be included there. I looked through your
supplemental materials published in the paper on the arxiv, is it the same
format as in the PRL? I only have the Lambda paper from PRL. Let me know
please. Thanks.
Specific Comments:
>
> In the abstract:
> 1) You may consider hyphenating "deep-inelastic" everywhere in this
> manuscript (this is how it was adopted in the lambda paper).
>
> I am leaving it unhyphenated for now, if required by PRL, I shall
hyphenate "deep-inelastic" everywhere.
2) In the definition of $\nu$ both $E$ and $E'$, the energy of the incoming
> and outgoing electrons, need to be defined. The other option is to remove
> the $\nu$ expression from here completely and keep it till after Eq. 1
> since you are duplicating the definition of $\nu$ there.
Removed in the beginning, and better defined later after eq.1
> Intro 4th paragraph:
> 1) EMC and CLAS need to be defined at first use in the first sentence
> where facilities are mentioned.
>
I see that in your paper EMC abbreviation is defined but CLAS in the same
context is not. I will leave mine as is now since the CLAS abbreviation is
defined later in the section of CLAS detector.
> 2) The $y$ cut is used in our studies based on previous HERMES results and
> thus it's better to explicitly state that to support its usage by saying
> for example "...to reduce the size of radiative effects on the extracted
> multiplicity ratios based on the HERMES studies [<add HERMES references
> here>]." (you may see the references that were used in lambda paper for
> that).
>
I prefer not to refer to HERMES on the use of the y-cut, since another,
much debated, kinematical cut on xF>0 that HERMES used, we did not employ
in our studies.
> 2) Since similar electron ID cuts have been used and published in several
> EG2 papers, I suggest adding those publications by the end of this
> paragraph to facilitate the external PRL review and strengthen the paper
> case in this regard. The suggested papers are listed below in Bibtex format.
>
Here, I must disagree with you since I did not use *any* of the electron ID
cuts used neither in yours nor in any other analysis. All the electron ID
cuts that were used in neutral pion analysis were improved from standard
ones as I developed them throughout my studies. If any, Or Hen used my
vertex alignment code and cuts, at least in his earlier works, yet, I was
never given credit for that. The same goes for some of the Sebastian Moran
electron ID cuts, here I was acknowledged for that. Please, refer to my
analysis note.
The reference to the Lambda paper is there together with other mentioned
CLAS multiplicity ratio publications.
> 3rd paragraph:
> 1) The suppression with $z$ is not observed only for the charged pions but
> also for the lambda baryon from the same CLAS EG2 dataset, thus a statement
> about that as well as its reference should be included here.
>
>
Here I am comparing suppression quantitatively between three pion states. I
am not including a mention of neither K-meson suppression that was
published earlier nor of Lambda, though both are from EG2 dataset; the
reference to these measurements is provided earlier.
In conclusion, please, let me know if I might be misinterpreting something
or if you have any further comments.
Thanks again, Lamiaa!
With best regards,
Taisiya
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 10:24 PM Taisiya Mineeva <mineeva at jlab.org> wrote:
> Dear Lamiaa,
>
> Thank you for your invaluable comments regarding the paper draft and
> further considerations when submitting the paper to PRL. I am working on
> your comments, I shall be back with you on it shortly.
>
> With best regards,
> Taisiya
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:31 PM Lamiaa El Fassi <elfassi at jlab.org> wrote:
>
>> First, I would like to congratulate Taisiya and the lead authors for the
>> approval of these interesting results and I wish you all the best with the
>> collaboration-wide review as well as the PRL submission.
>> Probably, you have already received some overlapping comments from other
>> collaborators, so I apologize for the intended duplication but I want to
>> make sure I conveyed all notes as there is no way to see what others shared
>> at this level. I hope you will find the comments helpful to polish the
>> manuscript.
>> By the way, one main issue I faced is related to the removal of line
>> numbers in this review round, which makes comments quite difficult.
>>
>> General comments:
>>
>> Author list: Please write all authors with their publication names:
>> T.~Mineeva, W.K. Brooks...., J.A. Lopez...
>> (P.S.: If accepted in PRL, you will be asked to provide the zip codes for
>> all institutions listed in the manuscript, so you may work on that from now
>> on if you want to)
>>
>> - Please make sure to be consistent with the verb tense used throughout
>> the manuscript and don't switch back and forth between present and past
>> tenses. You may avoid that e.g. by using the passive voice to refer to what
>> happened in the past for some instances.
>>
>> - Please avoid using the speaker pronouns (we, our...) as that can be
>> avoided by using the passive voice. This should be applied everywhere in
>> this manuscript except for the abstract and acknowledgment section if
>> needed.
>>
>> - Regardless of the nice review of theoretical models included in the
>> paper, the results of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are presented without any
>> theoretical curves, even GiBUU is not considered here. Thus, I wonder why?
>> P.S.: Based on my PRL lambda paper experience, the external reviewers
>> asked to include more theoretical predictions of the results, similar to
>> the published charged pions results, and just because of the complication
>> of developing new models of lambda production channel and the time needed
>> for it, we were able to convince the PRL referees that is not feasible for
>> the timeline of the current publication. In this spirit, as mentioned
>> above, I am also curious to know why no theoretical curves are included in
>> these results.
>>
>> - Please define your acronyms and kinematic variables at the first use.
>>
>> - I believe you will have to remove the sections titles before submitting
>> the paper to PRL as I don't think this is the current standard PRL format
>> if I am not mistaken (at least titles were not used in the CLAS lambda
>> paper and we were not asked to add them!)
>>
>> - PRL is accepting supplemental material, thus I suggest that you produce
>> one similar e.g. to the lambda PRL paper in which you will include all
>> \pi^0 invariant mass distributions, results for various kinematical bins,
>> description of particle ID, background subtraction of \pi^0 invariant mass,
>> corrections, systematic studies and their tables as well as tabulated
>> twofold and threefold results of figures 2 and 3. Referring to the thesis
>> which some of its results have been updated/changed during the advanced
>> analysis review stages is not enough.
>>
>> Specific Comments:
>>
>> In the abstract:
>> 1) You may consider hyphenating "deep-inelastic" everywhere in this
>> manuscript (this is how it was adopted in the lambda paper).
>>
>> 2) We tend to name the virtual photon energy as the "energy transfer
>> $\nu$", as you did later in the 2nd paragraph of the intro., and $z$ as the
>> "energy fraction" of the leading hadron. Please make sure to distinguish
>> between the two kinematical variables to avoid any confusion.
>>
>> 3) You may need to consider defining $p_T^2$, similarly to what has been
>> done to $z$, at the first use. You may consider writing e.g. in the 5th
>> sentence: "....and momentum transverse squared ($p_T^2$) is....."
>>
>> 4) In the first sentence you wrote threefold without a hyphen thus
>> "twofold" may need to be written also without a hyphen here and wherever it
>> applies in this manuscript.
>>
>> Intro First paragraph:
>> 1) "....and most recently has been described with a relativistic ....."
>>
>> 2) We tend to use "$x$" or "$x_B$" to denote the Bjorken scaling
>> variable, thus it might be preferable to use one of these two in this
>> paper. Also, you may at least name the variable here "...at high Bjorken
>> scaling variable "$x_B$"...." and leave its full definition on the second
>> intro. paragraph, or you may move ", where "$x_B$" is the fraction of the
>> proton momentum carried by the struck quark," to the end of the 1st
>> paragraph and remove it from the 2nd paragraph.
>>
>> Intro 2nd paragraph:
>> 1) "....lepton deep-inelastic scattering at high "$x_B$"..."
>>
>> 2) In the definition of $\nu$ both $E$ and $E'$, the energy of the
>> incoming and outgoing electrons, need to be defined. The other option is to
>> remove the $\nu$ expression from here completely and keep it till after Eq.
>> 1 since you are duplicating the definition of $\nu$ there.
>>
>> Intro 3rd paragraph:
>> 1) I suggest after Eq. 1 to change "Here.." with "where..." without
>> capitalizing "w" and put a comma by the end of Eq. 1 to have good
>> punctuation for equations as well.
>>
>> 2) "... in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering (SIDIS) events,
>> which, following the virtual photon scattering off the quark,...."
>> P.S.: The electron scatters off the target nucleus and exchanges the
>> virtual phone that scatters off the quark as e-s don't penetrate the
>> nucleus to say they scatter off the quark, isn't it?
>>
>> 3) "$Q^2$ is the virtual photon four-momentum transfer squared..."
>>
>> 4) $\nu$, see my previous comment about $\nu$ definition and its
>> duplication in the intro. 2nd paragraph
>>
>> 5) "In the absence of any nuclear effects, this observable is equal to
>> unity."
>>
>> Intro 4th paragraph:
>> 1) EMC and CLAS need to be defined at first use in the first sentence
>> where facilities are mentioned.
>>
>> 2) "A comprehensive review can be found in Ref.~[30]."
>>
>> Experimental Setup & Data Analysis:
>> 1st paragraph:
>> 1) CLAS was decommissioned as a spectrometer so it's better to use the
>> passive voice when referring to its components instead of the present tense
>> since it doesn't exist anymore.
>>
>> 2nd paragraph:
>> 1) "...a 2-cm-long liquid-deuterium target ..."
>> P.S.: Either use liquid deuterium target or deuterium cryo-target but not
>> both as the two terms "liquid" and "cryo" refer to the same thing.
>>
>> 3rd paragraph:
>> 1) "The SIDIS reaction $ e + A -> ...$ is measured, where...."
>> 2) "..., events with one scattered electron and at least two photons were
>> selected."
>>
>> 2) The $y$ cut is used in our studies based on previous HERMES results
>> and thus it's better to explicitly state that to support its usage by
>> saying for example "...to reduce the size of radiative effects on the
>> extracted multiplicity ratios based on the HERMES studies [<add HERMES
>> references here>]." (you may see the references that were used in lambda
>> paper for that).
>>
>> 3) You are already using $x_B$ as I previously suggested so please unify
>> your notations throughout the paper.
>>
>> 4th paragraph:
>> 1) "Electrons are selected by requiring...."
>> Please do the same to all other sentences starting with "We..." in this
>> paragraph.
>>
>> 2) Since similar electron ID cuts have been used and published in several
>> EG2 papers, I suggest adding those publications by the end of this
>> paragraph to facilitate the external PRL review and strengthen the paper
>> case in this regard. The suggested papers are listed below in Bibtex
>> format.
>>
>> @article{ElFassi:2012,
>> author = "El Fassi, L. and others",
>> title = "{Evidence for the onset of color transparency in
>> $\rho^0$
>> electroproduction off nuclei}",
>> collaboration = "CLAS",
>> journal = "Phys. Lett. B",
>> volume = "712",
>> year = "2012",
>> pages = "326-330",
>> doi = "10.1016/j.physletb.2012.05.019"
>> }
>>
>> @article{Hen_2013,
>> doi = {10.1016/j.physletb.2013.04.011},
>> title={Measurement of transparency ratios for protons from
>> short-range correlated pairs},
>> year = 2013,
>> month = {may},
>> publisher = {Elsevier {BV}},
>> volume = {722},
>> number = {1-3},
>> pages = {63--68},
>> author = {O. Hen et al.},
>> journal = {Phys. Lett. B}
>> }
>>
>> @article{Schmookler:2019,
>> author = "Schmookler, B. and others",
>> collaboration = "CLAS",
>> title = "{Modified structure of protons and neutrons in correlated
>> pairs}",
>> eprint = "2004.12065",
>> archivePrefix = "arXiv",
>> doi = "10.1038/s41586-019-0925-9",
>> journal = "Nature",
>> volume = "566",
>> number = "7744",
>> pages = "354--358",
>> year = "2019"
>> }
>>
>> @article{Moran:2022,
>> title = {Measurement of charged-pion production in deep-inelastic
>> scattering off nuclei with the {CLAS} detector},
>> author = {Mor\'an, S. and Dupr\'e, R. and Hakobyan, H. and Arratia, M.
>> and Brooks, W.K. and B\'orquez, A. and El~Alaoui, A. and El~Fassi, L. and
>> Hafidi, K. and Mendez, R. and Mineeva, T. and Paul, S.J. and others},
>> collaboration = {CLAS Collaboration},
>> journal = {Phys. Rev. C},
>> volume = {105},
>> issue = {1},
>> pages = {015201},
>> year = {2022},
>> publisher = {American Physical Society},
>> doi = {10.1103/PhysRevC.105.015201},
>> }
>>
>> @article{PhysRevLett.130.142301,
>> title = {First Measurement of $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}$
>> Electroproduction off Nuclei in the Current and Target Fragmentation
>> Regions},
>> author = {Chetry, T. and El Fassi, L. and others},
>> collaboration = {CLAS Collaboration},
>> journal = {Phys. Rev. Lett.},
>> volume = {130},
>> pages = {142301},
>> year = {2023},
>> month = {Apr},
>> publisher = {American Physical Society},
>> doi = {10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.142301}
>> }
>>
>> 5th paragraph:
>> 1) Similarly, please use the passive voice in all sentences starting with
>> "We..." in this paragraph too.
>>
>> 6th paragraph:
>> 1) Similarly, please use the passive voice in all sentences starting with
>> "We..." in this paragraph too.
>>
>> 2) Figure 1: Label, use "(GeV)" in both left and right plots. Caption:
>> The mass has a unit, so, please use it when referring to ranges, etc,
>> "...first on the range 0.03 GeV< $M_{γγ}$ < 0.26 GeV....". May I suggest
>> substituting (-5\sigma, +5 \sigma) with $\pm 5\sigma$ as "...and then on
>> the range of $\pm 5\sigma$ as indicated..."
>>
>> 3) "...event mixing technique can be found in Ref.~[34]." The reference
>> to supplemental material, as suggested above, can be added here too.
>>
>> Corrections:
>> 3rd paragraph:
>>
>> 1) The same comment about "We.." sentences in this paragraph.
>>
>> 2) "The ratio of acceptance correction factors for the electron number
>> ratio; i.e., deuterium to solid target, varies from a fraction of percent
>> up to +8\%, while for the $\pi^0$ number ratio; i.e., solid to deuterium
>> target,....."
>>
>> Results and Discussion:
>> 1st paragraph:
>> 1)"...threefold...."
>> 2)"...From Fig. 3, no effective dependence on energy and momentum
>> transfer to the system is observed, i.e.,....measurement. However, the
>> $Q^2$ and $\nu$ ranges in this study are much less...."
>>
>> 2nd paragraph:
>> 1) "Figure 2 shows...."! Figure is written in full at the beginning of a
>> sentence and abbreviated as Fig. in the middle of it.
>>
>> 3rd paragraph:
>> 1) The suppression with $z$ is not observed only for the charged pions
>> but also for the lambda baryon from the same CLAS EG2 dataset, thus a
>> statement about that as well as its reference should be included here.
>>
>> 2) GiBUU (Giessen Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbec) acronym should be defined.
>>
>> 3) Use "the Fermilab E665 experiment [45]" while referring to Ref. [45]
>> measurement.
>>
>> Conclusions:
>> 1st paragraph:
>> 1) "In this paper, the first differential $\pi^0$ multiplicity ratios
>> produced in SIDIS off D, C, Fe, and Pb with a 5.014~GeV electron beam and
>> measured with the CLAS detector are presented."
>>
>> 2) Last paragraph: The diquark speculation was also reported in the CLAS
>> lambda PRl paper, so please refer to it too in addition to Ref.~[47] while
>> talking about diquark correlations in baryon formation.
>>
>> References:
>>
>> 1) Use (HERMES Collaboration), (CLAS Collaboration), (European Muon
>> Collaboration), and (E665 Collaboration) for all related references.
>>
>> 2) Ref. [33]: H.~Hakobyan and W.K. Brooks {\it et al.},....
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20230601/d3cccba9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CLAS_results_on_Neutral_Pion_multiplicities__PRL_Copy_ (10).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 639915 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20230601/d3cccba9/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Clascomment
mailing list