[Primex2] APS April Meeting slides Compton

[Gan, Liping]

Hi, Li,

Here are more comments:


1.      On slide 3, remove “electron” from the next to the bottom sentence.

2.      On slide 4, add “Pair spectrometer” in your list of experimental setup

3.      On slide 7 and 8, if the Δk on both slides are the same as you said, how could it be possible that you still have the tails beyond the +/-0.4 to fit on slide 8 after you already applied a +/-0.4 cut on the slide 7?  Would you double check?

4.      On slide 8, change “using events in the tails of the time difference distribution” to “using the side band  events from the time difference distribution”. You missed “accidentals” in your list of “Fit result” on the left text box.

5.      On slide 10 with title of “Cross Sections as Function of Energies”, you have blue text about “Cross Section” inside of your figures. Are they the average experimental cross section over the energy range of the experiment? The numerical numbers for those cross sections have too many significant digits. The number of significant digits should match to your experimental precision.

6.      There are two slides “10”. Would you fix it?

7.      Slide 13, remove “Integrated” from your title

8.       Slide 14, my suggestions:  for the second sentence “For the first time, the Compton cross sections in the energy range of 4.4-5.3 GeV were measured  with the accuracy better than 2%”; for the last sentence “Extracted cross sections agree to the theory predictions with the higher order corrections”.

Liping




From: li ye [mailto:yeli.ciae at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 1:00 AM
To: Gan, Liping <ganl at uncw.edu>
Cc: primex2 <primex2 at jlab.org>; Ashot Gasparian <gasparan at jlab.org>; pawel <pawel at jlab.org>; Ilia Larin <ilarin at jlab.org>; Dipangkar Dutta <ddutta07 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: APS April Meeting slides Compton

Hi Liping,
1. done
2. done
3. the definition on slide 7 and 8 for Delta K are the same .
4. done.
5. done. see if it is OK I also text the Gaussian fit value
6. done. if it is not good enough please let me know .
7. 4.84 is the weighted average energy value , = Sum [ energy(i)*yield(i) ] / total yield , where i  is the energy bin number
8. done, I dont know if 2% is OK , maybe change to 1.5% ?
Please let me know if there is any other comments
Thank you for presenting this for me .
Li



On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Gan, Liping <ganl at uncw.edu<mailto:ganl at uncw.edu>> wrote:
Hi, Li,

Here are my a few comments:


1.      For the title on the  first slide, “electron” should be removed.

2.      The slide 3, my suggestion for your first sentence is “Electron Compton scattering is one of the most fundamental and the best theoretically known reaction in QED”. The reference for the higher order corrections should be L. M. Brown and R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 85, 231 (1952).

3.      Both histograms on the slide 7  and 8 are for Δk. You applied cut for Δk on slide 7 while you extracted yield from Δk on slide 8.  Can you tell me if the definitions of those Δk are the same? If not, please clearly define and distinguish them.

4.      For those yield extraction figures on slide 8 & 9, it is hard to see how good the fitting are.  Can you plot them in log scale?

5.      For the “Experiment/Theory Deviation” slide  (the second slide 10), it is better for you to project  those data points to the y-axis and show the mean value and RMS of the distributions.

6.      On slide 11, would you use red arrows to indicate where your actual cuts are? Your text font on the figures are too small to see. Can you make them larger?

7.      On slide 13, the column #2 shows that energy is 4.84 GeV. Does it correspond to one of your energy bin? What do you mean by “integrated cross section”? Do you mean that you integrated the total phase space or  the energy range of the measurement?

8.      On slide  14, you need make statement. For example, you can say “The Compton cross sections for the energy range of 4.4-5.3 GeV were measured with precision of …   for the first time”, “The Compton results validated that the systematic uncertainties of the PrimEx-II experiment for the pi0 lifetime measurement were controlled at the level of  ***%”.



I would appreciate if you could send out your updated version as soon as possible.



Liping




From: li ye [mailto:yeli.ciae at gmail.com<mailto:yeli.ciae at gmail.com>]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 1:48 PM
To: primex2 <primex2 at jlab.org<mailto:primex2 at jlab.org>>; Ashot Gasparian <gasparan at jlab.org<mailto:gasparan at jlab.org>>; pawel <pawel at jlab.org<mailto:pawel at jlab.org>>; Gan, Liping <ganl at uncw.edu<mailto:ganl at uncw.edu>>; Ilia Larin <ilarin at jlab.org<mailto:ilarin at jlab.org>>; Dipangkar Dutta <ddutta07 at gmail.com<mailto:ddutta07 at gmail.com>>
Subject: APS April Meeting slides Compton

Hi All,
Here is the slides for APS meeting, please send me your comments.
Thanks
Li

--
Li Ye
Mississippi State University
757-291-9896



--
Li Ye
Mississippi State University
757-291-9896
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/primex2/attachments/20180411/7a2964e6/attachment-0001.html>