<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:13px">Dear Michel,<br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">thanks a lot for your useful comments. We implemented most of them (and did not report about the accepted ones, since we agree on them).</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Below, you can find our answers on the points that need a more detailed discussion.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Best regards,</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Angela, Erin, Silvias</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">-----------------------------------------------------------</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "Eqs 1 and 2 could (should?) be in line within the text, and there is a minus sign missing in Eq 1."</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Thanks for noting the sign, you are right! As to the positioning of the equations, we preferred to leave them as they are, to give the right resonance to the quantities introduced. We also slightly modified this part following some suggestions from Volker.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "L73-74: not quite correct. “The transverse part of t is the squared Fourier conjugate of the transverse ….”.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Yes, you are right. We corrected it.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "Eq8: to be consistent with Eq 6, is not there a factor –pi missing ?"</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Yes, we included it.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "L106: “With a finite number of measurements, a model input is necessary to deconvolute…” (meaning that with an infinite number of integrals along x, there are, or could be, mathematical ways to get the x-dependence; this may be compared to medical imaging reconstituting 3D images from 2D measurements)"</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">We preferred to leave it as it is, since we will always have a finite number of measurements only, and don't wanna be misleading with too many details.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">"L135: HERMES statistics on TSA are comparable to exploratory CLAS (see Fig. 22). I would write: “….was also performed. The statistics obtained in measurements [13,14] do not allow for a 4-dimensional binning of the data”.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">We rephrased that paragraph, and the presentation of the previous measurements has been reordered.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "L 187-188: F1 and F2 already defined. Put a full stop at the end of Eq 16, skip “where…factors” and write “Due to the relative values of the proton form factors F1 and F2,….”"</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Thanks, it is way better now.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "L190-191: this is not quite correct, and we had that discussion before for the PRL and checks were made with VGG. The contributions of H and H_tilde to A_UL are quite comparable. It is misleading to say that the latter is dominant and the former minor. Please find another formulation."</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Ok, we modified the text explaining better why there is a comparable sensitivity to ImH and ImHtilde.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "Section III: may be worth adding towards the end the beam helicity flip frequency and a typical target polarization reversal frequency."</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">While we know that the helicity change is the usual one - i.e. 30 Hz - it is hard to define a typical frequency in changing the target polarization, since the changes were not regular at all. We preferred then not to mention this information, not to create "asymmetry" among the two polarization information.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "About combining results from parts A and B, it would be instructive (and maybe necessary) to add what is the expected beam energy dependence of the 3 observables from a given model (say VGG), for fixed xB, Q2, t. It is not enough, as is done later, to show that the bin centers are nearly the same."</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">We did some studies through the VGG model, the results of which can be found here:</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><div><a href="http://www.lnf.infn.it/~pisanos/dvcs/prd/coll_wide_review/ebeam_test/" target="_blank">http://www.lnf.infn.it/~pisanos/dvcs/prd/coll_wide_review/ebeam_test/</a><br></div><div><br></div></div><div style="font-size:13px">The two curves are the -t dependence of the three asymmetries in our 5 (Q2, xb) bins for the two beam energies (blue line is partA, red partB). Since the difference is very small it is well beyond our statistical precision.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "Table III: same number of significant digits everywhere ?"</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">To the best of our knowledge the significant figures are correct as is. For statistical errors one usually retains only the first non-zero digit unless the error is small (e.g. 0.015) and then it is common practice to keep two digits. For these reasons all the PbPt and one of the Pb errors have two digits, while the other ones have been rounded to one.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "L853: $R_Acc, 1.3\times R_Acc, 0.7\times R_Acc$"</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">We explained it in words, to make the sentence more readable.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "L891 and others: we call GK (from the original GPD parameterization) a calculation of DVCS observables made by KMS (and for this paper by MS). Although this is a bit heavier notation, why not replacing GK by GK-KMS ? GK did not calculate DVCS, and it would be fair to our collaborators on this."</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">Unfortunately, we cannot change it anymore since we used the same notation for the PRL, and we need to be consistent among the two papers.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "Fig.26 caption: is not it -ImH/pi and - ImH_tilde/pi which are plotted? If yes, should be explicit in the caption."</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">The quantities that we plot in the figure are the actual imaginary parts of the CFFs, because we keep into account the -pi factors.<br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">- "Table V: strictly speaking, TSA, its errors and c (DSA and other c) should have the same number of significant digits (4). I would leave it as is, but make sure it is the case in the CLAS data base."</div><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">We adopted the convention to present all the results with 3 sig figures, however being the TTSA correction so small we decided to report with 4 sig figures to avoid zero values.</div><div style="font-size:13px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;border-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><span style="border-collapse:separate"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br></div></span></span></span></div><div>Thanks again!</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_signature"><div></div></div>
</div>