<div dir="ltr">Hi Diana,<div><br></div><div>The updated paper sounds good!</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Diana Parno <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dparno@uw.edu" target="_blank">dparno@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi d2n,<br>
<br>
I have attached a revised A1n letter that I think is (mostly) ready for Physics Letters B. The theory section at the beginning has been extensively reworked: the pQCD parameterizations (now including the JAM fits) are given much more room, and the DSE predictions at x=1 are summarized much more succinctly. The description of our experiment now includes more details on the momentum resolution and the way in which the radiative corrections were computed. The flavor separation results have been updated based on Dave's latest global analysis (the changes are not large) and the world-data references used in those fits have also been updated. The conclusions have been softened somewhat.<br>
<br>
Please take a look and send me your comments within the next week or so. After making the revisions we agree upon, I will send this out to the Hall A list for another look before submitting to PLB.<br>
<br>
I have a couple of particular questions for the crowd here:<br>
<br>
1 - The length requirements for Physics Letters B are a lot more forgiving, so there is now room to include a table with our parallel and perpendicular asymmetry results on 3He. That kind of thing is useful for the people doing global analyses. Of course this should go in the archival paper too, but what are your thoughts on including such a table in this letter?<br>
<br>
2 - One of the referees for PRL asked for more theoretical uncertainties in our plots. I am working on trying to plot error bands for the pQCD parameterizations (which do give error bars on each parameter) but will stop if there is a strong consensus that this is not worthwhile.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I personally don't think the theoretical uncertainties are necessary here. Given the fact that we can not differentiate between the models given the precision of our data, I do not think including theoretical uncertainties adds anything to the discussion. But maybe this is a decision for the more experienced collaborators.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Diana<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------<br>
Diana S. Parno<br>
Acting Assistant Professor<br>
Associate Director, CENPA<br>
Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics<br>
University of Washington<br>
Box 354290<br>
Seattle, WA 98195-4290<br>
<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:dparno@uw.edu">dparno@uw.edu</a><br>
Tel.: <a href="tel:%28206%29%20543-4035" value="+12065434035">(206) 543-4035</a><br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
d2n-analysis-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:d2n-analysis-talk@jlab.org">d2n-analysis-talk@jlab.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/d2n-analysis-talk" target="_blank">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/d2n-analysis-talk</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div>-Matt</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"> Matthew Posik<br><div> Postdoctoral Fellow<br></div><div><br></div><div> Temple University </div><div> Department of Physics</div><div> SERC <br></div><div> 1925 N. 12th St.</div><div> Philadelphia, PA 19122</div><div> USA</div><div><br></div><div> TU Office: SERC Room 449</div><div> Phone: 215-204-2532</div><br></div><div>Physics Office: SERC Room 406/4th Floor</div><div>Phone: 215-204-7421</div></div></div></div>
</div></div>