[Clascomment] OPT-IN:Suppression of neutral pion production in deep-inelastic scattering off nuclei with the CLAS detector

[Taisiya Mineeva]

Dear Reinhard,

I appreciate your comments. All the corrections you suggested were
implemented. Please, find a new version of the paper in the attachment.
A few comments on the implementation of corrections are below.

I find the first paragraph repellant, as in, I would not want to read this
> paper.   Statements about
> creating new "gravitational mass from pure energy" ring as very naive and
> trusting of theory that is not very well understood (by you). I suggest
> removing this whole paragraph and starting the paper with a more modest and
> honest set of statements about how this worthy effort fits into the larger
> scheme of things.   Nothing in the later paper and the experimental results
> links to the statements made in the first few sentences. Don't promise
> things you cannot deliver with this work.
>

Thank you for your unwarranted criticism.  We are presently considering
either reframing the entire introduction paragraph or leaving it as is in
the latest version (attached) where I have removed the first two
introduction sentences related to 'gravitational mass'. I also mentioned
this earlier in my response to Sebastian Kuhn's comment.

Page 2, Col 1, Paragraph 1, -4 lines from the bottom:  remove "nontrivial"


The features we observe in our data are indeed nontrivial!


>
> P2, C2, P4, L7: You have a habit, here and later in the paper, of writing
> in mixed tense.   Good writing typically calls for being consistent about
> tense, at least at the paragraph level.   Usually it works best to write in
> past tense when describing the experiment and the analysis procedures.
>  You can switch to present tense when you are presenting results that are
> immediately in front of the eyes of the reader.   In this case, use "These
> cuts ansl ensureD xB>0.1 so that we WERE probing valence..."


Good point, mixed tenses are now fixed across the paper.

Fig 1 caption:  It is unhelpful to cram the formula for the function into
> the caption:   is adds nothing the reader cares to know.   Remove "The
> total...peak function".   Also, you make the erroneous statement that you
> computed the number of pi0's "from the height of the Gaussian".   You
> obviously need both the height and the width in the way you approached it.
>
>
The formula used to be in the text, however, we found that it is much
easier to follow the context of free and predetermined parameters when
described directly under the figure captions. Captions were rephrased to be
more clear. Considering "from the height of the Gaussian" it was corrected
for the "integral of the Gaussian function".



> Related to how you fitted the pi0 peak, you should have used a normalized
> Gaussian in your fitting function, with just a single parameter specifying
> the number of counts under the curve.   Your method is less good, because
> you ignore the correlated uncertainties between the fitted height and the
> fitted width.   That is, you have to take two fitted numbers to compute the
> total number of particles.   But the "error" on that number cannot be
> computed with ordinary error propagation on account of the correlations.
>  A better method would be, as mentioned, to fit directly to a normalized
> Gaussian that takes care of that mistake easily.
>
>
The peak was fitted with normalized Gaussian function as you can see from
the formula under the figure caption.

P3, C1,P2, -3 lines from bottom:  Use "two photon invariant mass".   Then,
> in the next sentence, it is not clear what you mean by "After energy
> correction...":  you do not specify what this correction is about.
>

This is now corrected by making a statement a sentence earlier on the
photon energy correction.


> P6, C1, P2, L13:  You say "...due to the lenth contraction of the
> propagating quark..." , which is nonsensical.   What are you really trying
> to say?
>

Lorentz contraction of path length.


>
> P6, C2, P1, L3:   Again confusing.   You say "Such behaviour is opposite
> to the published HERMES results, which suggests.... "   This has not been
> made clear enough yet.   Are you saying the neutral pion result (CLAS) is
> different from the charged pion result (HERMES), or something else?
>

Yes, indeed. This sentence was made more clear.


All other comments were implemented as suggested.

Thanks again and best regards,
Taisiya
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20230529/11e4b9b2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CLAS_results_on_Neutral_Pion_multiplicities__PRL_Copy_ (7).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 519855 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clascomment/attachments/20230529/11e4b9b2/attachment-0001.pdf>