<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Hi Diana,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Diana Parno <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dparno@uw.edu" target="_blank">dparno@uw.edu</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Concerning electron energy loss, I looked at this back in June of 2011 for the elastic tail (pages 5 and 6): </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"><a href="https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/2/25/DF_LHRS_6_23_11.pdf">https://hallaweb.jlab.org/wiki/images/2/25/DF_LHRS_6_23_11.pdf</a></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">you can see that this effect looks quite small; however, I never quantified it any further. Of course, this was for the LHRS data, but the concept should be the same for BigBite. </div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I have redone the fit to the A1p data, and I don't see a significant change in the fit; in fact, it's accounted for by my error band (which I show in the long paper draft). My impression is that these data won't significantly affect our results. </div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
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 …<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">My thought process in this analysis was to minimize as much model dependence as possible; if we use our "favorite" model of F1p to construct g1p/F1p, we would introduce another systematic error here (as I would generally consider other models in the construction, and see how they all differ, let alone considering a single model's systematic error), in addition to my fit of g1p/F1p. By fitting only those data that are extractions of g1p/F1p, we don't have to worry about an extra systematic error. </div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I believe those more recent HERMES results are Delta u/u and Delta d/d (and anti-quark counterparts); that would be a non-trivial calculation to construct the ratios we need. Those HERMES results can be seen here:</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"><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0407032.pdf">http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0407032.pdf</a><br></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><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>office phone: <a href="tel:%28413%29%20545-0586" value="+14135450586" target="_blank">(413) 545-0586</a><div>--------------------------------------------------------------------<br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>