<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Hi Diana,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The new draft looks good! </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial">On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Diana Parno </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial"><<a href="mailto:dparno@uw.edu" target="_blank">dparno@uw.edu</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial"> wrote:</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I suppose we could add these data into this paper as well, but I am uncertain as to how much it would add to the discussion? Though I can't see that as being a bad thing. And, as you pointed out, these are already to be included in the long paper. It should be noted that we would have to add tables for g_1/F_1 and A_1 on 3He for both the E = 4.74 GeV and 5.89 GeV data. The data we have in the paper currently are averaged *after* nuclear corrections are applied to the 4.74 and 5.89 GeV data separately. </div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This would be interesting to see, but as Matt pointed out our precision isn't good enough to discern between the models. Additionally, does varying the parameters within their errors for a given fit yield the same errors one obtains by using the Hessian matrix that theory groups tend to report? </div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br></div>--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>David Flay<div>Post-doctoral Research Associate</div><div>University of Massachusetts, Amherst<br></div><div>Department of Physics</div><div>Lederle Graduate Research Tower, Rm 423</div><div>710 N Pleasant St</div><div>Amherst, MA 01003-9305</div><div><br></div><div>office phone: (413) 545-0586<div>--------------------------------------------------------------------<br></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>