[Hybrid baryons] Resubmission to the HSWG: PAC44 proposal on Hybrid Baryons search at low energies

Mon May 23 14:38:41 EDT 2016

To the  CLAS Collaboration Chair, Prof. Jerry Gilfoyle,

To the CLAS Hadron working group chair, Dr. Marco Battaglieri,

To the CLAS Review Committee: Dan Watts, Carlos Salgado and Nick Markov

please find in attachment the updated version of the PAC44 Proposal on 
Hybrid Baryons search,

that includes all the corrections and suggestions from the reviewers.

You will also find a point-by-point reply.

I understand that the 1st round of the review is closed and it is not 
possible for me to upload the reply

directly on the Database, until Marco will restart the review.

Do not hesitate to contact us for any additional questions or problems.
Looking forward to your feedback.

Best regards

Annalisa D'Angelo
on behalf of the "hybrid baryons" working group.

Il 06/05/16 17:43, Dan Watts ha scritto:
> Dear Annalisa,
>
> All the reviewers were impressed with the proposal and agreed that a 
> very thorough job has been made in simulating the analysis and that 
> the physics case is well made. The comments and suggestions from the 
> reviewers are collated below
>
> Best regards,
> Dan
>
>
> p7:  Are there any (even simple minded) theoretical studies that 
> indicate that the hybrid baryons should have a comparable width to the 
> standard N*? Or that the photocoupling is of similar magnitude?
>
> Also could the (disputed) sightings of hybrid states in the meson 
> sector with widths of similar magnitude to standard mesons be 
> mentioned as a possible indication that hybrids are not expected to 
> have large unobservable widths?
>
> P7 Fig. 2: Should probably mention what the other curves are (maybe in 
> the caption) so readers dont have to look up the paper.
>
> P9. 3rd para: A result similar -> A theoretical result similar
>
> p13: Is there an estaimated timescale for calculations at the physical 
> pion mass to become available?
>
> p22 1st para: providing a nicely complementary range of measurable 
> photon virtualities -> providing a complementary range of measurable 
> photon virtualities, including the gap region for the lower beam 
> energy setting.
>
> p24 called FASTMC -> (FASTMC)            this had already been defined
>
> p27 1st para: with a detection efficiency lower than in the inclusive 
> case where the value of W_rec is determined-> with a correspondingly 
> lower
>
>
> p32 1st para: since kinematic region -> since the kinematic region
>
> p38 1st para: completely dominates  ( this assumes the forward tagger 
> is triggered on charged particles i.e. ignoring the photon flux  - 
> text is probably OK as is though)
>
> p38 3rd para: the farm -> a CPU farm
>
> p43: These ratio -> These ratios
>
> -------------
>
> FASTMC is an important part of you studies. Could you provide some 
> more details on it?
>
> Figs 6: what are the solid lines?
>
> P.21, Fig 12. In the text it says that positive torus current causes 
> increase in minimum detectable $Q^{2}$, while negative current lowers 
> the minimum values. Fig. 12 shows that in both cases minimal $Q^{2}$ 
> is about $0.2 GeV^{2}$. Could you clarify?
>
>  P. 48, Eq 8, last line: $105 cos\theta \to 105 cos^{2}\theta$
>
> Fig 15, right. What are the dots?
>
> Fig 20. How do you select exclusivity cuts?
>
> Fig. 25, 26: The depletion at 35 degrees is much more  prominent for p 
> and $K^{+}$ than for $\pi^{-}$. Could you clarify why?
>
> -------------
>
> Since the full proposal is presenting such detailed studies of 
> proposed analysis and running conditions, it will be nice to see 
> somewhere a short  "executive summary"
> where with tables or simple statements there will be details of the 
> overall proposal : i.e.  most important expected physics outputs and 
> effects in hadron structure models,  specific running conditions (i.e 
> a table including triggers and effects on other parallel programs in 
> CLAS12), expected more difficult points on the analysis -model 
> dependences, backgrounds, ambiguities, acceptances ...... and so on.
>
> Best,
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/05/2016 11:32, Dan Watts wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I hope to have finished reviewing the proposal later today/early
>> tomorrow. The deadline is quite tight.
>> How is everyone else doing?
>>
>> Best,
>> Dan
>>
>> On 19/04/2016 07:54, Marco Battaglieri wrote:
>>> Dear Dan (chair), Nick and Carlos,
>>> I'd like to thank you for agreeing to be part of the Hybrid meson
>>> photoproduction (A.D'Angelo et al.) review committee.
>>> In attachment you will find the charge with deadlines and duty.
>>> Annalisa D'Angelo is acting as contact person. I'm expecting he will
>>> provide all necessary support (supporting material, missing info,
>>> answers, ...) in a timely manner in order to respect the deadline.
>>> Thanks again for your contribution.
>>> Marco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
================================================
Prof. Annalisa D'Angelo
Dip. Fisica, Universita' di Roma "Tor Vergata"
INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome Italy
email:annalisa.dangelo at roma2.infn.it
Jefferson Laboratory, Newport News, VA USA
Email: annalisa at jlab.org
Tel: + 39 06 72594562
Fax: + 39 06 2040309

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/hybrid_baryons/attachments/20160523/92da2f62/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clas-rev.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39446 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/hybrid_baryons/attachments/20160523/92da2f62/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Hybrid_Baryon_PAC44_v2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3998033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/hybrid_baryons/attachments/20160523/92da2f62/attachment-0003.pdf>