<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Dear Dan,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thank you very much for your comments. We have revised the paper and included most of your comments. We will leave the remainder to the Nature copy editor.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I wrote “done” at the end of each block of comments to refer to the entire block (except specified ones).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Larry <br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 9, 2020, at 9:44 AM, Daniel Carman <<a href="mailto:carman@jlab.org" class="">carman@jlab.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Dear Mariana et al.,<br class=""><br class="">I have read through the draft of your paper on using electron scattering data from<br class="">CLAS to impact neutrino oscillation analyses. A nice "outside-the-box" idea and an<br class="">ideal application for the Hall B data-mining project. My comments are given below.<br class="">If you have any questions, let me know.<br class=""><br class="">Regards,<br class="">Daniel<br class="">---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br class="">General:<br class=""> - You are not consistent through with handling speed of light units c. I suggest you choose a<br class=""> presentation format with c=1.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>So far as I can tell, we used MeV and MeV/c consistently throughout. Since this is aimed at Nature rather than PRL, we will leave the c explicit.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - You are not consistent with usage of "quasi elastic", "quasi-elastic", and "quasielastic".<br class=""> Please review.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>fixed. We now use quasi-elastic</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - You do not list the figures in the order that they are cited in the text.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>fixed</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - The referencing of the figures in the supplementary section is awkward, e.g. see Fig. Extended<br class=""> Fig. 2.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>fixed</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - You are not consistent throughout with including the atomic number on your different targets.<br class=""> I prefer to include the atomic number consistently. This comment is relevant for the text and<br class=""> the figure labels/captions.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>We now mention the atomic number when the target is first mentioned, but we do not keep repeating it because 12C and 56Fe are the standard isotopes.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - You have units separated from their values over consecutive lines of text. To fix this in<br class=""> latex, do the following, e.g. "2~MeV”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 1:<br class=""> - In the address list, some states are spelled out and other are abbreviations. Be consistent.<br class=""> - In the address list, some US addresses have zip codes and some do not. Be consistent.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>This will be fixed before submission.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Left column:<br class=""> - Paragraph 1:<br class=""> - Line 1. Use "... of only a few phenomena ...".<br class=""> - Line 2. Use "Standard Model".<br class=""> - Line 10. Use "accelerator-based".<br class=""> - Line 31. Use "next-generation, high-precision experiments, …”</div></div></blockquote>done</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Paragraph 2:<br class=""> - Line 2.<br class=""> - Right column:<br class=""> - Paragraph 2:<br class=""> - Eq. 1. End with a comma for proper punctuation.<br class=""> - Line 1 after Eq. 2. Use "... is the neutrino mass difference squared ...".<br class=""> - Eq. 1. Your notation is not clear. You have mu and e subscripts and then you switch to<br class=""> 1, 2, 3 subscripts. It is important that the definitions here are clear.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>We now write that "The different flavor neutrinos (labelled $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$) are linear combinations of the different mass neutrinos labelled $1,2,3$."<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Eq. 2. End with a comma for proper punctuation.<br class=""> - Paragraph 4:<br class=""> - Line 1 after Eq. 1. Use "cross section”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 2:<br class=""> - Fig. 1. Both of your 2D plots are unreadable. They need to be enlarged, especially the right-side<br class=""> figure that is referenced throughout this paper.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>we will enlarge the right-side one. We now refer to the smaller one as "an incident energy spectrum”. The details of that are not critical.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Fig. 1. Left-side plot - your capitalization is not consistent in the blue and green areas.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>We will fix that<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Fig. 1 caption.<br class=""> - Line 1. Use "(Left)".<br class=""> - Line 4. Use "... the way they are analyzed ...".<br class=""> - Left column:<br class=""> - Paragraph 1:<br class=""> - Line 3. Use "... neutrino energies."<br class=""> - Paragraph 3:<br class=""> - Line 4. Why the quotes on "topologies”?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>because it is a technical term that we are defining by using it</div><div><br class=""></div><div>done</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 3:<br class=""> - Left column:<br class=""> - Paragraph 1.<br class=""> - Line 16. Use "... next-generation, high-precision ...".<br class=""> - Paragraph 2.<br class=""> - Line 2. No comma after "nuclei".<br class=""> - Paragraph 3.<br class=""> - Right column:<br class=""> - Paragraph 1.<br class=""> - Line 2. Use "... radiation to the electron-GENIE ...".<br class=""> - Paragraph 2.<br class=""> - Line 4. The use of the term "unwanted" is not clear.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>added (e.g., pion or extra proton)<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Paragraph 3.<br class=""> - Line 7. Use "undetected".<br class=""> - Paragraph 6.<br class=""> - Line 10. Use "meson-exchange currents”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>not traditionally hyphenated. I’ll leave this one to the copy editor<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Line 11. Use "... referred to as $2p2h$), …".<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 4:<br class=""> - Left column:<br class=""> - Paragraph 1.<br class=""> - Line 1. Use "... were detected, and smeared the …".<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>I like Oxford commas too!<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Right column:<br class=""> - Paragraph 1.<br class=""> - Line 4 after Eq. 4. Why "Doppler-broaden" instead of "Fermi-smeared", which is more consistent<br class=""> with your terminology later in the paper?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>doppler broadening is more widely used in science. I replaced “fermi motion” with “nucleon motion” to be more consistent<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Paragraph 2.<br class=""> - Line 2. Use "... events that are the most ...".<br class=""> - Paragraph 3.<br class=""> - The discussion of Fig. 2 is a bit tricky. There is a shift in the QE peak that you do not mention<br class=""> here, yet it is one of the first things that I saw. Also, how do we know what the quality of the<br class=""> CLAS data reconstruction is? Were momentum corrections done to put the peak in the proper location?<br class=""> You never mention which dataset is analyzed in the discussion here.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>We now mention the e2a data set in the Methods section. We found that when we recooked the e2a data set with the newer torus field map, the momentum corrections needed were far smaller than for the original cook. We state in Methods that "The electron momentum in each sector was scaled to give the correct missing mass for the $^3$He$(e,e'pp)n$ reaction. These correction factors were all less than 1\%.” The data peaks are in the correct location; the Genie peaks are not.<blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Another aspect in looking at comparing data to models is that the comparison only makes sense if the<br class=""> model properly accounts for the CLAS resolution function. This is mentioned a bit tangentially for<br class=""> my tastes. It seems that this should be a bit more stressed. The comparison is only as good as this<br class=""> accounting. So, how was this done? Did you smear with a resolution function event-by-event? Did<br class=""> you use GPP with GSIM (which is entirely inadequate - it works on average, but misses important<br class=""> kinematic dependence)? I recommend you mention clear the necessary smearing of the model with the<br class=""> CLAS resolution function and provide some more details in the supplementary material.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>We did smear the simulation by the average CLAS momentum resolution. I added those numbers to the Methods section. However, the broadening seen in Fig 2 is completely dominated by nucleon motion. The effects of CLAS resolution can be seen in the peak widths of Fig 3, which are very small.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Line 6. Use "cross sections".<br class=""> - Paragraph 4.<br class=""> - Eq. 5. Add comma at the end of the equation for proper punctuation.<br class=""> - Line 3 after Eq. 5. You have not defined "removal energy”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>We’ll let Nature decide if it’s not self-explanatory<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Paragraph 5.<br class=""> - You capitalize "Carbon" and "Iron". This is not proper.<br class=""> - Line 9. Use "... distributions, see Section I.”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>I moved the reference to Table I one sentence earlier.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Line 12. Use "... underestimating it at 2.257 and ...".<br class=""> - Paragraph 6.<br class=""> - Line 7. Use "... also become significant …".<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 5:<br class=""> - Fig. 3. I am confused as to why the QE peaks from GENIE are not Gaussian. If you have convoluted the<br class=""> model with the CLAS resolution function, it should be force these peaks to be Gaussian.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>because we used a bad drawing option in root. that is now fixed.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">- Fig. 3 caption.<br class=""> - Line 9. Use "... data are not shown.".<br class=""> - Left column.<br class=""> - Table I is not referenced in the text.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>yes it is<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Paragraph 2.<br class=""> - Line 5. Use "... beam energy, which is not possible …".<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 6:<br class=""> - Fig. 4 caption.<br class=""> - Line 1. Use "(Left) The missing ...".<br class=""> - Line 4. Use "(Right) The calorimetric ...".<br class=""> - Left column.<br class=""> - Paragraph 3.<br class=""> - Line 2. Use "... distributions, which are not testable ...".<br class=""> - Line 4. You reference subfigures of Fig. 4 (a,b,c,d), but you have not put the letters<br class=""> on the plots.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 7:<br class=""> - Right column.<br class=""> - Paragraph 4.<br class=""> - Line 6. Include a reference to CLAS12. We have just published an 18 paper NIM volume!<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>we are limited in references. We will include it if we can.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">References:<br class=""> - Do not include preprint numbers for papers that are already published.<br class=""> - [9]. Fix format for NOVA.<br class=""> - [12]. Here you use "NIM". Elsewhere you use a different format.<br class=""> - [15]. Reference incomplete. Fix format for NOVA.<br class=""> - [16]. Reference incomplete.<br class=""> - [19]. Fix format for MINERVA.<br class=""> - [40]. Use "et al." as you do elsewhere.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>mostly done. I’ll let the copy editor fix the NOVA and MINERVA formatting<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 8:<br class=""> - Right column.<br class=""> - Paragraph 2.<br class=""> - Line 10. Use "CLAS Collaboration".<br class=""> - Line 12. Use "e-GENIE".<br class=""> - Paragraph 3.<br class=""> - Line 1. Use "Reprint and permission information …".<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 9:<br class=""> - Paragraph 1:<br class=""> - Line 1. End bf line with a colon, not a period.<br class=""> - Line 5. Use "... protons, and photons, and to ...".<br class=""> - Line 15. I suggest "... agreed within the detector resolution with that calculated from the<br class=""> particle's momentum ..." (Obviously there must be a resolution factor.) <br class=""></div></div></blockquote>we now write "(to within $\pm$three times the standard deviation of the detector resolution)"</div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><font color="#000000" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class=""> </span></font> - Line 18. Use "... calorimeter, which implied a …".<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>nope. it changes the meaning<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Paragraph 2:<br class=""> - Line 3. Your subscripts should be "_{\pi^+}" and "_{\pi^-}.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>I’ll leave that to the copyeditor. The super-sub-script gets really tiny.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Line 8. Use "... and close to 100\%."<br class=""> - Paragraph 3:<br class=""> - Line 4. Missing GeV units on arc measurement.<br class=""> - Paragraph 4:<br class=""> - Line 3. Switch order of Eq. number references here, 4 should come before 5.<br class=""> - Line 4. Add a comma after "\Delta \epsilon”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>mostly done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 10:<br class=""> - Left column.<br class=""> - Paragraph 1.<br class=""> - Line 16. Use "... N_{rot}$, where $N_{rot}$ ...".<br class=""> - Paragraph 3.<br class=""> - Line 3. Use "... $0\pi$ events, which we ...".<br class=""> - Line 4. Use "... event sample, or as ...".<br class=""> - Line 5. Use "... sample that we used ...".<br class=""> - Line 10. Use "... e'p)$ samples. We then ...".<br class=""> - Paragraph 4.<br class=""> - Line 6. Use "... with an undetected ...".<br class=""> - Line 7. Use "... with a detected $\pi^\pm$ ...".<br class=""> - Line 11. Use "... photon event and the effect …".<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>nope<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Right column.<br class=""> - Paragraph 2.<br class=""> - Line 5. Use "... to use reaction mechanisms as close to $\nu$-GENIE as ...".<br class=""> - Paragraph 3.<br class=""> - Line 5. Use "... production, which includes ..."<br class=""> - Line 9. Use "... $2p2h$ currents), which describes ...<br class=""> - Line 10. Use "... $\Delta$ peaks; ...".<br class=""> - Line 14. Use "data-driven".<br class=""> - Line 16. Use "normalized".<br class=""> - Line 17. Use "low-energy data”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 11:<br class=""> - Left column.<br class=""> - Paragraph 2.<br class=""> - Line 7. Use "... 4.453~GeV, respectively."<br class=""> - Right column.<br class=""> - Paragraph 1.<br class=""> - Line 1. Use "...2\% for the signal and 5\% …".<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 13:<br class=""> - Fig. 2. Match the plot sizes for a cleaner look.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><font color="#000000" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">done</span></font></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">- Fig. 2 caption.<br class=""> - Line 2. Use "meson-exchange currents”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>up to Nature<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Fig. 4 caption.<br class=""> - Line 2. the left and middle figure reference is swapped in the caption.<br class=""> - The caption refers to subfigures (a), (b), (c), but there are no labels on the plots.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>fixed<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 14:<br class=""> - Fig. 5 caption.<br class=""> - Line 5. Use "iron”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 15:<br class=""> - Fig. 7 caption.<br class=""> - The term "feed-down" does not seem appropriate. It is a fractional energy shift relative<br class=""> to $E_{true}$.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>feed-down is the term used by the neutrino community<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> - Line 2. Missing energy units for 2.256 and 4.453.<br class=""> - Fig. 8 caption.<br class=""> - Use "vs.".<br class=""> - Use "data”.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>done<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Page 16:<br class=""> - Fig. 10 caption.<br class=""> - Line 1. Use "(Left)".<br class=""> - Line 2. Use "... Fe$(e,e')$ for (a) events ...".<br class=""> - This caption is confusing. You use (Left) but do not have a (Right). You refer to (a) and (b)<br class=""> and there are no such corresponding labels on the plots. Please tidy this up.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote>fixed.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div class="">Lawrence B. Weinstein</div><div class="">University Professor and Eminent Scholar</div><div class="">Physics Dept</div><div class="">Old Dominion University</div><div class="">Norfolk, VA 23529</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:weinstei@jlab.org" class="">weinstei@jlab.org</a></div><div class="">757 683 5803</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""></div></body></html>