[E01107] long paper has been resubmitted

Tue Apr 6 13:42:25 EDT 2010

Hello All,
The revised long paper and the response to referee comments has been submitted
to PRC. Thank you very much for your help in revising and reviewing the
manuscript.
The latest version is at http://www.jlab.org/~ddutta/pictprc_resub.pdf
Thanks again
Dipangkar

----- Forwarded message from esub-adm at aps.org -----
    Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:38:37 +0000 (UT)
    From: esub-adm at aps.org
Reply-To: esub-adm at aps.org
 Subject: [Web] resub CH10189 Qian
      To: prctex at ridge.aps.org

Subject: CH10189

Manuscript code: CH10189
RECVD: Tue Apr  6 13:38:37 2010
Resubmission to: Physical Review C
Resubmission type: resubmit

New files with this resubmission:
pictprc_resub.tex 04-06-2010
figure20.eps 04-06-2010

Deleted files from previous submission:
pictprc.tex 04-06-2010
pictprc.pdf 04-06-2010
pictprc.ps 04-06-2010

Replaced files:
figure10.eps 04-06-2010
figure11.eps 04-06-2010
figure12.eps 04-06-2010
figure13.eps 04-06-2010
figure14.eps 04-06-2010
figure15.eps 04-06-2010
figure16.eps 04-06-2010
figure17.eps 04-06-2010
figure18.eps 04-06-2010
figure19.eps 04-06-2010
figure1.eps 04-06-2010
figure2.eps 04-06-2010
figure3.eps 04-06-2010
figure4.eps 04-06-2010
figure5.eps 04-06-2010
figure6.eps 04-06-2010
figure7.eps 04-06-2010
figure8.eps 04-06-2010
figure9.eps 04-06-2010

Details of changes:
Response to specific referee comments:

1. The summary figure of this paper is #19 in which the parameter
\alpha clearly follow the Q2-dependence of CT predictions. However,
the transparency data shown in fig. 15 are much less convincing. It is
therefore essential that the procedure in determining \alpha together
with the fit quality and the error evaluation is described in fine
detail.

A.
We added a new plot showing the fits of the A-dependence of the nuclear
transparency. (Fig. 19). We have added text to explain that the total
uncertainty of alpha are from fitting the A-dependence with the
quadrature sum of statistical, systematic and model uncertainties.
The statistical uncertainties of alpha is from fitting the results
with just the statistical uncertainties. Even though the single-parameter
fit $T = A^{\alpha-1}$ is simple and neglects local A-dependent shell or
density effects, this does not affect the final conclusion that the
A-dependence changes with $Q^2$. We have verified this with two methods:
(i) We find a similar increase (within the experimental uncertainties) of
$\alpha$ with $Q^2$ when fitting {\sl only} the data from medium-heavy
nuclei, $A >$ 10. This corroborates the results shown in Fig. 18 earlier;
(ii) The increase of $\alpha$ with $Q^2$ also remains when we change from
a single-parameter $\alpha$ fit to a two-parameter fit to
$T=\betaA^{\alpha -1}$. The results from these fits are now listed in a
table. Although the quality of the fit is better for the two parameter form, the
best fit is obtained for $\beta$ =1.25 which is unphysical
for $A=1$ since it does not satisfy the condition $T(A=1)=1$. Moreover, the
single parameter fit describes the hadron-Nucleus cross-sections for a wide
range of hadrons~\cite{carrol1}, which is our motivation for comparing the
electroproduction data with the same form. Thus, even though the exact value of
$\alpha$ may come with a variety
of nuclear physics uncertainties, given the simplistic form of the $A$
dependence, we find that the empirical $Q^2$ dependence is well established.
The above text has also been added to the relevant section of the manuscript.

2. The properties of the PLC (and its assumptions) should be explained
in more detail on page 5.

A: We have added several sentences in Sec II. There are three necessary
conditions for PLC. The first one is the high momentum transfer. It
will select the PLC amplitude out of the initial and final state
hadron wave-functions. The second one is that the PLC must be a
color neutral object. The third one is that it needs to be
maintained for some time in order to generate the CT effect.

3. The explanation on p. 6 why there is no coherence length dependence
is unclear.

A. Text added to clearly explain the coherence length effect and how the
coherence length in our experiment is constant and it is too small to have any
effect on the transparency.

4. Include a ref. for outing CT into the context of QCD factorization
(p. 6).

A. Done.

5. Ref 7 does not refer to GPDs, thus this reference on page 6 is
misplaced or wrong.

A: Fixed

6. Provide a definition of X_B, prior to page 6.

A: Fixed in page 3 left column.

7. I assume that raster corrections were applied to the trajectories,
but there is no mention of that in the text (p. 11?).

A: Text added.

8. On p. 15 the cell-wall subtraction procedure is described. I assume
that the thickness of the dummy target was chosen to be seven larger
than that of the cell windows to equalize multiple scattering
contributions. If indeed so, mention this in the text.

A: text added

9. On p. 17 several comments. How was off-shellness tested? The
explanation of the uncorrelated error in radiative corrections is not
clear, nor is how SIMC incorporates pion decay. What is the relation
to Pauli blocking and the distribution function of Fantoni? The FSI
contributions from the knocked-neutron are not explained clearly.
A:
9.1 Three methods were tried in the analysis for the off-shellness
treatment. We include the description of all three methods in
the text. The default method is the most consistent one when
comparing to the data.

9.2 The uncorrelated uncertainties of the radiative correction is
obtained by comparing the effect of radiative correction with
different targets.

9.3 A more complete description of the pion decay in the
SIMC is provided, and we have added a reference for it.

9.4 We add additional explanation about the treatment of Pauli
blocking.

9.5 n-N FSI was not included in the analysis, but the uncertainty due to
this was estimated by quantifying the difference in the shape of the missing
mass spectra between data and Monte Carlo.

10. On p. 19 the bin-centering procedure should be defined, also in
relation to the averaged values mentioned on p. 21.

A: The bin-center procedure is defined by Eq 9. It is used in
extracting the cross-sections shown in Fig. 13 and 14. The "average
method" were used to form L/T cross section ratio, which is shown
in Fig. 12 and all nuclear transparencies. We emphasize the
bin-centering method and clarify its relation with average
method after Eq 9 in Sec.VII.

11. Somewhere on p.25, it should be cautioned that the error bars in
Sigma_L/Sigma_T are 50% or larger.
A: Fixed:

12. Yerevan is listed twice (footnotes #6 and 19) on the author list.

13. Why is support from FOM and KOSEF acknowledged, when no author is
affiliated with a Dutch or South-Korean institute?

14. Lines and symbols on most figures need to be thickened/enlarged.

A: 12., 13. and 14 fixed.

Summary of Changes
-------------------
Numerous small textual changes have been made to improve the readability of the
article. The major changes are:

1. All figures have been redrawn to meet the minimum size requirements for axis
labels and titles. The captions are no longer italicized. Where appropriate the
lines have been thickened to improve visibility.

2. A new figure has been added in response to the referee comments. The new
figure is Fig. 19, the old Fig 19 is now Fig 20.

3. A new table, Table V, has been added in response to the referee comments.

4. Page 2, column 2, lines 5-13 are new lines that have been added.

5. As requested by the referee, a longer discussion of the lack of coherence
length effect in this experiment has been added to the end of the last paragraph
on page 3, column 1.

6. In response to the referee comments, a discussion on bin centering has been
added to section VII (page 8, column 1).

7. Additional details on the off-shell corrections, pion decay and Pauli
blocking have been added to section VII on page 9, columns 1 and 2.

8. A detailed discussion on the fitting of the A-dependence of nuclear
transparency, including a new figure (Fig. 19) and table (Table V), has been
added to section IX part G on pages 21 ans 22.

9. A new reference (Ref. 9) has been added

Remarks intended solely for the editor:
We have made all the text and figure related changes suggested by the referee
and the editors.
The text has been revised to correct for grammatical errors and to make it more
readable. We have responded to all specific comments from the referee
with additional text where necessary. Our response to the specific referee
comments are listed in the response field above. We thank the referee for a very
careful and through review which has helped improve this manuscript.

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Dipangkar Dutta    Assistant Professor
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Mississippi State University
Rm 010C Hilbun Hall,  P.O. Box 5167
Mississippi State, MS 39762-5167
Ph: 662 325 3105      Fax: 662 325 8898
email: d.dutta at msstate.edu
webpage: http://ra.msstate.edu/~dd285