[Clascomment] [EXTERNAL] Re: OPT-IN:Suppression of neutral pion production in deep-inelastic scattering off nuclei with the CLAS detector
Lamiaa El Fassi
elfassi at jlab.org
Sun Jun 4 01:18:52 EDT 2023
Dear Taisiya,
Thank you for your nice words in all your correspondences related to this
review, and for forwarding me the new version of your paper as well as
incorporating most of my comments/suggestions. I agree this version looks
nice and much more polished. Still, I am inserting below a few comments (in
bold) for consideration as you see fit. Some comments were inserted in blue
for easy tracking underneath your responses. I hope all is clear. If not,
feel free to contact me and I will be pleased (:)) to clarify and/or
iterate with you once more if needed.
Best wishes for the remaining steps
-------------------------
Lead Authors list: Please consider listing your lead authors in
alphabetical order after your first author name (El Alaoui seems out of
order).
(P.S.: *The CCC didn't receive yet the limited membership for one lead
author. It should be noted that the paper can't be submitted to arXiv or
the journal with an undefined status of one of the coauthors. Please try
your best to respond **to this call** at your earliest convenience to avoid
any delay in the external submission once the internal CLAS review steps
are done. You could forward that to me and I will be happy to forward it to
all CCC members if you prefer to!*)
Lines 15 and 68: I still recommend that you change "energy transfer z" in
line 15 to energy fraction as defined in line 68 for consistency and to
avoid any confusion as stated earlier.
Line 24 - 33: While this paragraph was shortened, it's left now without any
references compared to having 6 references in the previous version. Your
first Ref. appears in Line 38 in this version, which is a bit late in my
opinion. Please consider adding some references to the current first
paragraph.
Line 24: QCD (*quantum chromodynamics*) acronym needs to be defined (it was
defined in the previous and got removed in this version!?)
Line 32/34: I still think you need to write "...at high* Bjorken scaling
variable* "$x_{Bj}....$ in line 32/"....*at **high *"$x_{Bj}$, where...."
in line 34! At least you're naming the variable at first use and leaving
its definition to the 2nd occurrence since this is your preference.
Lines 34 & 59: You mentioned in your reply that you won't use a hyphen of
"deep inelastic" but it's hyphenated here. That was the objective of my
previous comment to be consistent with the use of a hyphen everywhere.
Eq. 1: If I am not mistaken, it doesn't seem the subscripts of all
variables in this equation are in math mode but in Roman font, unlike when
the variables such as $N_h$, $N_e$, etc, are listed in the subsequent lines
with their definitions. It is standard to use math mode for all variables,
e.g. Rh, pT, etc. Please make sure you're not using $R_{\text{h}}$ instead
of *$R_h$* here and everywhere in this manuscript (h seems in a Roman font
in line 109 e.g.; It must be in math mode $h$->*h*)
Line 82: EMC is still not defined so I thought you did once I read your
reply. You may leave it for now and see what the PRL editing team will
suggest once the paper is accepted.
(P.S.: For the lambda paper, we decided to define the CEBAF acronym and
left CLAS as that will be too much for the abstract.)
Lines 139-140: I still think it might be better to say "...a*
2-cm-long *liquid-deuterium..."!
But, you may ignore it if you don't want to add "long" here.
Line 166: See the inline follow-up comment below w.r.t. $y$ cut.
Line 173: Either use ".. $Q^2$*, and 2)*....." or "...$Q^2$*; 2)*.......",
which I guess would work too.
Line 193-194: I believe it might be better to remove ";" and use while
instead to connect the two clauses. Either way, you should use "was used"
in the 2nd clause. "...Electron-proton elastic scattering was used to
determine
the beam offset, while the latter *was used* to correct the reconstructed
interaction vertex for each event."
Line 224: "....were combined* to provide *a good description of the...." !
To avoid a past tense in "This provided..."
Line 227: "....in *Ref.~*[30]."
Lines 253-257: To avoid the past tense in "there were....", you may rewrite
it e.g. as:
P.S.: do you need to keep using "due to external radiation" instead of just
saying "external radiative corrections"? the sentence seems a bit awkward
to me so I change that too below, but you can use it as you see fit.
"Additionally, *the external* radiative corrections *that are* associated
with bremsstrahlung in the target material were incorporated in the *GEANT3*
simulations*,* and were accounted for by applying acceptance correction
factors."
Lines 331-332: "From Fig. *3,* no effective dependence on energy and
momentum transfer to the system is observed*; i.e.,* $Q^2$ and $\nu$, ..."
Line 335: "...HERMES*, where*..."
Line 397: You forgot to write the verb "is presented" for the subject "the
first differential $\pi^0$ multiplicity ratios measurement":
"In this paper, the first differential $\pi^0$ multiplicity ratios
measurement produced in SIDIS off D, C, Fe, and Pb with a 5.014~GeV
electron beam and measured with the CLAS detector *is presented*."
Line 433: EIC needs to be defined: "The *Electron-Ion Collider* [44]...."!
No need to add the acronym here since you won't use it again in the paper
core.
References:
[27] S. Moran* et al.* (CLAS *Collaboration*), ....
Ref. [41] is missing the journal PRL then its volume, etc. This is its
Bibtex format:
@article{Paul:2022,
title = {Observation of Azimuth-Dependent Suppression of Hadron Pairs in
Electron Scattering off Nuclei},
author = {Paul, S. J. and Mor\'an, S. and Arratia, M. and El Alaoui, A.
and Hakobyan, H. and Brooks, W. and others},
collaboration = {CLAS Collaboration},
journal = {Phys. Rev. Lett.},
volume = {129},
issue = {18},
pages = {182501},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.182501},
}
Ref. [44]: EIC Yellow Paper is already published in the NPA journal, so
this is its reference if you want to use it instead of arXiv:
@article{AbdulKhalek:2021gbh,
author = "Abdul Khalek, R. and others",
title = "{Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the
Electron-Ion Collider}: {EIC Yellow Report}",
primaryClass = "physics.ins-det",
doi = "10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447",
journal = "Nucl. Phys. A",
volume = "1026",
pages = "122447",
year = "2022"
}
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 9:12 PM Taisiya Mineeva <mineeva at jlab.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
My pleasure, Taisiya :)!
>
> - 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.springer.com_article_10.1140_epja_i2011-2D11113-2D5&d=DwIFaQ&c=CJqEzB1piLOyyvZjb8YUQw&r=9lC_IPiecGXi54_ApLpB4sC9docu8cc-D4izipD_t6U&m=NnUVxM8h7z6OeMLAbkmQKuo_hBHgbeRIN2ux0G10VrertPL30PFdd72dA3hVy8qY&s=m73PuwVKebZmt2DL2N0nkmvi0fEA3s1eP2mUtBkHYbo&e= .
> 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.
>
Many times people want to see things when are not working/break as an
indication of something about the fundamental dynamics, as you mentioned,
is missing and/or not accurate. Still, I am fine with your vision and wish
you the best of luck with convincing the external PRL referees about it.
>
>> - 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.
>
Attached are the PDF and Latex files of the lambda
supplemental material. I used the same "revtex-2" PRL style, but
a one-column format instead of two. PRL prefers that you submit only the
PDF of the supplemental. but neither the latex file nor the related
figures, if any! Any links to the results figures' etc, shown in the paper
should be inserted by hand (like Fig. numbers) as the hyperlinks/Refs.
won't work anymore since the two PDF files are produced separately. The
ad-hoc committee would need to review the supplemental whenever it's ready
for consistency, etc.
> 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.
>
Of course, it's up to you to decide what to include in your paper :),
but xF and y cuts are quite different and used for different purposes. The
fact that the adopted cut of $y < 0.85$ is based on an earlier study, we
were asked during the lambda ad-hoc review to mention its origin even
though we did vary it in the lambda analysis to study its systematic
effect. In the end, feel free to use what you see convenient for your
paper's case.
>
>> 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.
>
Take it easy, Taisiya, as the meaning of my comment was not for credit,
but to refer to the same datasets published papers that they have quite
similar cuts with common ideas and concepts. I am not going to discuss the
story of the initial EG2 group members and how they were treated as I don't
want to go down that road. If we want to credit someone for their
contributions, we add them to the coauthors or lead authors lists, not
refer to their papers! That is, at least, my understanding of citing
references to strengthen and support the discussed ideas/concepts, which is
different than crediting someone for helping e.g. with some analysis/paper
aspects. The point, as previously expressed, is to simply facilitate the
external PRL review by people who are not necessarily familiar with
CLAS analyses and their related particle identification cuts and thus make
the case that this is what is typically utilized and has been adopted in
several other EG2 publications. In the end, this is a suggestion based on
my perspective, which you can use as you see fit!
The other important point about suggesting adding the PLB CT paper as a
reference is the EG2 run-group, as you know, was not about hadronization
studies only but included CT as well. Thus, I previously convinced myself
if the paper won't be cited earlier once the EG2 run period is mentioned,
it can be cited somewhere else along the lines of particle ID. In case that
is not desirable, as you expressed, please find the place where to cite
properly the two experiments that the EG2 run-group initially consisted of
as it's done in all other published EG2 papers.
> The reference to the Lambda paper is there together with other mentioned
> CLAS multiplicity ratio publications.
>
Okay, thanks for adding 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.
>>
>>
> 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.
>
That is fine since these papers were cited earlier in this version.
>
>
>
> 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/20230604/d713eda0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Supplemental-Material-LX17917-Chetry.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 516297 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20230604/d713eda0/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Supplemental-Mat-EG2lambdaPRL-v10.tex
Type: text/x-tex
Size: 38614 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20230604/d713eda0/attachment-0001.bin>
More information about the Clascomment
mailing list