[ee] TCS proposal ready for collaboration review

[Pawel Nadel-Turonski]

Dear Igor and Mher,

Thank you very much for you comments! We will discuss them and get back 
to you as soon as possible.

To provide you with some very brief replies to your general comment, 
however, we felt that since this is a new type of measurement, the 
motivation is important to present in some detail, in particular since 
many PAC reviewers are theorists.

The weighted cross section R' is calculated in the CLAS acceptance in 
each kinematic bin, so the conditions are exactly the same both 
experimentally and theoretically. As you point out, this probably needs 
to be made clearer.

We are not going to use the forward tagger for TCS as the rates would be 
very low. The forward tagger is interesting, however, for J/Psi 
electroproduction, but this will be developed in a following proposal.

Best Regards,

     Pawel

On 4/17/2012 12:45 PM, Igor Strakovsky wrote:
> Dear Pawel and friends,
>
> Overall, this is a very promising proposal addressed to a very
> interesting physics.  Unfortunately, it has too much theory and less 
> experimental details.  Let us suggest to reduce theory part and drop
> off so many theoretical details which are really unnecessary for the 
> experimental proposal.  In the experimental part, just due to the
> acceptance effect and invariant mass range, phase space of integration
> is destroyed, so guess another strong point authors should demonstrate
> is that how close are generated weighted cross section, R or R' with 
> reconstructed one.
>
> As far as well known, the Forward Tiger which the Italian group is
> building is a new hardware for CLAS12.  Are you going to use it?  Did
> you consider any benefits from FT to your proposal?
>
> There are several technical issues...
> The quality of most of figures require some polishing. There are a lot
> of missed labels and characters are too small to read them. List of
> Refs has many hidden sources as [44,45,52,53,54,55,56].  You have to
> give links on the open sources.  Then please use the standard Phys
> Rev stile for references.
>
> Nevertheless, we would like to make some remarks and raise some
> questions that should be considered.  Let us put them in order.
>
> Igor
> Mher
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> - Abstract: You have to say - why energy range between rho' and J/Psi
>  is attractive.
>
> - pg 3 [Intro, para 1, line 15]: You cannot 'explain' and then 'explore'.
>   Please fix it.
>
> - pg 3 [Intro, para 2, line 5]: It is unclear, please re-phrase 'in terms
>   of universal (process-independent)'.
>
> - pg 4 [2nd bullet, line 2]: It is unclear, please re-phrase 'a broad
>   range of light-cone fractions'.
>
> - pg 4 [3rd bullet, line 1]: What other data?
>
> - pg 4 [3rd bullet, line 2]: What 'global QCD  analysis' means.
>
> - pg 4 [3rd bullet, line 4]: Amplitudes of what?
>
> - pg 4 [2nd para below 3rd bullet]: Please make your position clear -
>   what purpose to do J/Psi photoproduction measurements.  If to study
>   systematics, then you have to say how you are going to do that.  If
>   there is a special interest to such kind of measurements, then spell
>   out the physics.
>
> - pg 6 [Sec. B, para 1, line 3]: What 'hard scale' means?
>
> - pg 8 [Fig 4]: There is no label for x-axis.
>
> - pg 8 [para 1, line 3]: 'new' ==> 'additional'.  Why that is important
>   here?
>
> - pg 14 [Fig 8]: There are no labels for both x- and y-axes.
>
> - The authors presented their ability to do data analyses (like they did
>   with 6 GeV data) and they show that they can extract amplitudes using
>   CFF fitting procedure of Ref. [36] (in which error propagation is not
>   clear for to us, so we guess case will be more strong with the plots
>   like Fig. 9 rather than fits).
>
> - pg 15 [Sec. E, para 2, line 1]: Please clarify 'quasi 
> model-independent'.
>   This experiment is model-dependent by default.  So, you can do nothing
>   model-independently.
>
> - pg 16 [Sec. G]: We do not think this Sec is necessary - too small
>   theoretical details.
>
> - pg 16 [Sec. H, line 5] It looks that Ref [47] is PhD thesis but you
>   mentioned LoI.  Please adjust text accordingly.
>
> - pg 16 [Sec. H, line 10]: g12 energy is 5.7 GeV - it is good to say it.
>
> - pg 17: On Fig 9 of the proposal guess the authors should add also
>   expected projections. Guess this is the 2 plots that can proof how
>   good CLAS12 can be and how strong is the proposal.
>
> - pg 17 [Fig 9]: R is somewhere in the text and Fig 4 & 9 captions. Then
>   R' is somewhere in the text.  What is the difference between R and R'.
>   Any formulas for that?
>
> - pg 18 [Sec I]: How you are going to determine (measure) J/Psi cross
>   sections? How is about acceptance and MC?  What stat and syst
>   uncertainties you are expecting?
>
> - pg 18 [Sec I, line 9]: 'and impact its impact' ?
>
> - pg 19: To make the case more strong guess one should present Fig. 11(b)
>   of Fig. [8] with the projections. Or put projections on Fig. 8 after
>   acceptance.
>
> - pg 19 [Fig 11 caption]: 'J/Psi production as'
>
> - pg 20 [line 1]: How many 'several' ?
>
> - pg 23 [Sec B]: It is well known that CLAS12 (as CLAS6 does) will have
>   different sensitivity to positive (better) and negative (worse) charged
>   particles. How you take into account this fact?
>
> - pg 28 [Ref [56]: How one can possible to consider a hidden predictions?
>   What uncertainties Vadim promises?
>
> - Fig. 25 is missing (at least in the version that we have).
>
> - pg 30: On Fig. 21, you clearly present holes in theta vs. phi plots.
>
> - pg 35 [Fig 27]: You have to give table with expected cross sections
>   and stat and syst uncertainties.  It is good to compare your
>   expectation with available experimental data.