<div dir="ltr">Hi Diana,<div><br></div><div>It's great to read the positive comments. Great job!</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-Matt</div></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:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello d2n,<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
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>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
So … what are your thoughts?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Diana<br>
<br>
Attachments:<br>
A1nLetter-FirstSubmissionPLB.pdf — For reference, this is what we submitted to Phys. Lett. B last month.<br>
Reviewer1-plB-D-14-01723.pdf — Full report from Reviewer 1.<br>
Reviewer2-plB-D-14-01723.pdf — Full report from Reviewer 2.<br>
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.<br>
A1nLetter_01302015.pdf — Partially revised paper, current as of today.<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>
<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>
<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><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>