[d2n-analysis-talk] Referee comments on A1n letter

Tue Feb 3 08:04:43 EST 2015

Hi Diana,

It's great to read the positive comments. Great job!

For what its worth I have attached a study that I did at one point which
explores the size of the changing Q^2 over our x bins. This study was done
explicitly on g1, but I think the same conclusion would apply to A1: given
our statistical precision on A_parallel (g1 or A1) and our limited Q^2
range (~ 2-7 GeV), which is mostly distributed around our mean Q^2 (~4GeV),
we are not that sensitive to the changing Q^2.
An experiment with better precision and a wider range of mean Q^2  data,
such as JLAB 12 GeV, would be able to better probe the Q^2 sensitivity.

-Matt

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Diana Parno <dparno at uw.edu> wrote:

> Hello d2n,
>
> Last week I heard back from the Physics Letters B editor about our A1n
> letter submission (attached). The referees were generally positive (I’ve
> attached their full reports) and we have a little less than two months to
> revise and resubmit. I’ve already made some progress addressing their
> concerns, but there are a few items where I would greatly appreciate the
> guidance of the group. The attachment labeled “ResponseToReviewers” gives a
> numbered list of each reviewer’s comments, and I’ll refer to those numbers
> here. These are the items that require some non-trivial amount of
> additional work and/or a judgment call about how we want to position the
> paper. What do you think about these?
>
> Reviewer 1, item 5 (migration between x bins in BigBite): I’ve already
> talked with David a bit about this, and he remembers doing a small study on
> how electron energy loss affected bin assignment (but will have to dig into
> his notes). I took a very look at the kinematics plots for the 4.74-GeV
> data set and, in the DIS range we’re reporting in this letter, most of the
> counts are fairly central within the x-bin. We see about a 25% drop in
> counts between one edge of the x-bin and the other, with an approximately
> linear falloff in between. My gut says this is not a huge effect given our
> energy resolution but I don’t have numbers to back this up.
>
> Reviewer 1, item 7 (world fits): David and I have already talked about
> this and it seems the COMPASS data were casualties of last-minute thesis
> chaos. He’s already planning to redo the world fits on the timescale of the
> next week or two.
>
> Reviewer 1, item 9 (including JAM parameterization in Fig. 1 of A1n vs x):
> Personally I think the reviewer makes a good point; we do assume the
> Q^2-independence of A1n in our extraction. In discussions between Wally and
> David everyone agreed that it didn’t make sense to plot the JAM
> parameterization at a very different Q^2 value for the flavor-separated PDF
> ratios, but I don’t think those arguments apply to Fig. 1. We might even
> consider plotting the JAM fits with and without explicit quark OAM, which
> is a nicer comparison for A1n than LSS(BBS) versus the much later Avakian
> et al parameterization.
>
> Reviewer 1, item 10 (including A1n world data from deuteron targets): My
> vague recollection is that we stuck with 3He out of tradition and a desire
> not to clutter the plot. I am still a little concerned about cluttering the
> plot but would be willing to give it a try. It’s not hard to get those
> published A1n data.
>
> Reviewer 1, item 12 (including g1p data in the world fit, scaled by some
> reference value of F1): This question seems tougher to me. I am not
> immediately sure how well fixed F1p is in this kinematic range (although it
> must have been measured a lot?) and what kind of systematics we might
> introduce this way. I’m sure David and Zein-Eddine have thought about this …
>
> Reviewer 1, item 13; Reviewer 2, item 5 (constructing PDF ratios from
> different experiments): While I see the reviewer’s argument, this strikes
> me as a lot of work to do on other people’s data and I am not persuaded
> that the results would be very comparable to our data points. At the same
> time I don’t want to discount the other work that’s out there, and the
> caption is already rather long for adding in another explanation of why we
> don’t plot [fill in work here]. And there is the fact that both reviewers
> thought something was clearly missing.
>
> Reviewer 1, item 17; Reviewer 2, item 8 (upcoming JLab A1n experiments):
> Perhaps I oversold the check of Q^2 dependence! I can reword that. I think
> the reviewer’s other point, that the placement of this advertisement at the
> end undercuts our results, is probably a good one. We could shift the
> advertisement a paragraph earlier, to line 249 in the revised draft. If we
> go into a little bit more detail about the possible sensitivity of those
> experiments as suggested by Reviewer 2 (and is that sensitivity something
> we want to comment on?) then I definitely think we should move this
> discussion a little earlier in the paper.
>
> Reviewer 2, item 3 (figure defining angles): It looks like the first three
> figures don’t even count against the length requirement, so we have plenty
> of room for this figure. I think I even prepared one for my thesis, too, so
> I can just use that.
>
> So … what are your thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Diana
>
> Attachments:
> A1nLetter-FirstSubmissionPLB.pdf — For reference, this is what we
> submitted to Phys. Lett. B last month.
> Reviewer1-plB-D-14-01723.pdf — Full report from Reviewer 1.
> Reviewer2-plB-D-14-01723.pdf — Full report from Reviewer 2.
> ResponseToReviewers_01302015.pdf — Point-by-point listing of both
> reviewers’ comments, with a draft of our response for each item I have
> addressed as of today.
> A1nLetter_01302015.pdf — Partially revised paper, current as of today.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Diana S. Parno
> Acting Assistant Professor
> Associate Director, CENPA
> Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics
> University of Washington
> Box 354290
>
> Email: dparno at uw.edu
> Tel.: (206) 543-4035
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> d2n-analysis-talk mailing list
> d2n-analysis-talk at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/d2n-analysis-talk
>
>

-- 
 Matthew Posik
 Postdoctoral Fellow

 Temple University
 Department of Physics
 SERC
 1925 N. 12th St.
 Philadelphia, PA 19122
 USA

 TU Office: SERC Room 449
 Phone: 215-204-2532

Physics Office: SERC Room 406/4th Floor
Phone: 215-204-7421
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/d2n-analysis-talk/attachments/20150203/07cd7b32/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: E06014-Q2Dep.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 937955 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/d2n-analysis-talk/attachments/20150203/07cd7b32/attachment-0001.pdf 