[Pvdis] [Halla_coll] PVDIS main paper v0.8
Xiaochao Zheng
xiaochao at jlab.org
Mon Oct 21 13:27:24 EDT 2013
Dear Alexandre and all:
Thank you for your detailed comments. Below please find my reply. Some of the language comments might be relevant to everyone here (search for "LANGUAGE"). Two of the comments will need inputs from Jens (search for "Jens").
I have attached the latest drafts. In addition to Alexandre's comments, I have made two more changes:
(1) Immediately follow Eq.(3), added the fact that C_1,2 are proportional to quark weak charges:
"Here the $C_{1u(1d)}$ and $C_{2u(2d)}$ are the effective weak
couplings between the electrons and the up (down) quark,
and are proportional to the quark vector and axial weak charges, respectively."
(2) Fig.1 has been updated (thanks to Mark for working on this). I also changed the last sentence of the figure caption to:
"Note that the same scale is used for the two axes to illustrate the significant difference in our knowledge of the $C_1$ and $C_2$ couplings."
Now back to Alexandre's comments:
>Maybe you can resend such version for the other collaboration members?
I tried for the line numbers, but it does not work for PRL templates. (Although it did work for our NIM paper). Sorry.
>Abstract, line 4: Is the tense correct? "One of the... are the electron-quark...coupling ... C2q's" >are -> is, C2q's -C2q, or alternatively: One -> some, coupling -> couplings.
---LANGUAGE--- What about change from:
"One of the quantities accessible through measurements of parity-violating observables are the electron-quark effective weak coupling, called $C_{2q}$'s, measured directly only once in the past 40 years."
To
"One particular set of the quantities accessible through measurements of parity-violating observables is the electron-quark effective weak couplings, called $C_{2q}$'s, measured directly only once in the past 40 years."
>Page 2 column 1
>line 8: Put Ref. after C.S Wu
We had references to Wu and the GSW model in earlier drafts, but later removed them because these are widely-recognized, textbook physics. We also have a limit of 30 references for the Letter. (Although this limit is less of an issue now).
>lines 11-12. "electron scattering ... regime" -> "electron quark scattering". This seems better to >me because it is more explicit rather than using jargon (we are still in the introduction, so we >can't assume that the reader knows what DIS implies), also it is shorter.
---LANGUAGE--- I have changed
"We report here on a new measurement of the parity-violating asymmetry in electron scattering in the deep inelastic scattering kinematic regime, and extract electron-quark weak couplings."
to:
"We report here on a new measurement of the parity-violating asymmetry in electron-quark scattering, and extract electron-quark weak couplings."
***However, although we are using "electron quark scattering" in the title, I am somewhat less comfortable with it in the introduction where we could use more words to explain what we are doing. If anyone else have a strong opinion about this, please comment.
>line 16: "set constraints on" -> constrain It is shorter and more elegant
---LANGUAGE--- I am more comfortable with the former, so I left it unchanged. I don't see how the word "constrain" is more elegant, and the structure of "set constraints on" seems to be more parallel with the sentence before ("in agreement with" rather than "agree").
>line 22: measurements in the future -> future measurements (shorter, more elegant)
---LANGUAGE--- But then it will be "even more precise future measurements". Too many adjectives. I left it unchanged.
>lines 28 to 31> Do you mean to talk about higher twists and DGLAP-type effects here? Is the text >strictly correct? In addition to DGLAP/higher twists, there is also the EMC effect, which is >present at any Q2 apparently. If so even in the DIS limit, there would be effects from the >surrounding in case of nuclear targets.
The idea here is to define DIS for nonexperts in as few words as possible, therefore only the main idea of DIS is present: That it is electron scattering from quasi-free quarks.
>line 36 Is the english correct?: that describes -> and describes?
---LANGUAGE--- I think both would work.
>3 line above bottom. The middle name initial of Prescott is incorrect. (It's Y, not W. It's correct in the biblio)
Thanks!
>page 2 column 2
>The transition between paragraph 1 and 2 is not smooth. We have a general discussion in paragraph 1 >and in 2 we start by "the new measurement was performed". Maybe simply write "The new measurement >reported here was performed" or connect better the two paragraphs.
Done!
>2 last lines: "and that due... below 0.4%" The sentence read weird.
---LANGUAGE--- I don't feel it's weird. But please feel free to comment further.
>page 3 col. 1
>4 lines below eq. 5: The 2 SM numbers quoted for the asymmetries and the one quoted for 2C2u-C2d >are without uncertainties. You should add them or explain why they are not quoted. (if you add SM >uncertainties, you must update the fig. 1). I don't know how we can have SM numbers without >uncertainty unless they are definitions (such as the speed of light)
Following the discussion between you and Jens, I added, immediately below Eq.(6):
"where the total uncertainty includes those from PDF fits and higher order radiative corrections."
(I don't think it is necessary to specify exactly what corrections is in here.)
>above eq. 6: English correct? "and found" -> and we found ?
I changed "found" to "gave"
>The paragraph below eq. 6 is not clear to the non-expert I am: First, maybe change the sentence >"The values for ...accessed..." to "The Q2=0 values for...differ from the non-zero Q2 ones >accessed..." which is easier to understand. Then, when you quote 0.002-0.003, to a value at what >non-zero Q2 it refers: 1.1 or 1.9, or both?
I fixed that. It's for both kinematics.
>Then you discuss the weak mixing angle but this is a >bit disconnected from the rest, and you don't >give anything to compare to (for ex the standard PDG >average).
I added a sentence
"This can be compared with the best knowledge on this quantity $\widehat s^2_Z = 0.2312$~\cite{Beringer:2012}."
where the reference is PDG. Jens, I know we took out the PDG reference earlier, is this sentence OK? Is it appropriate to add the PDG back in, or should we use a difference reference? What is the uncertainty of this value?
As for quoting the result on sintw, it should belong to the same "level" as the C2 results, and NOT the mass limits. That's why it's shown just below C2. On the other hand, it is not the main result of this experiment, and should NOT be presented in a separate paragraph. That's why it ended up there the way it is now.
>page 3 col. 2 lines 7-8: in an unambiguous way -> unambiguously (shorter, more elegant)
---LANGUAGE--- Done.
>page 4 below e1q. 8: the acronym BSM is used without being explicated, and used only once. -> >replace by beyond the standard model.
Done
>3 lines before end of main text: new interactions -> putative (or posited) interaction. Because new >may be understood literally: as something new and existing. (I have the same remark for page 2, >line 17, although the "beyond the standard model here hint to the cognoscente that by new you mean >putative).
---LANGUAGE--- I don't see problems with the word "new". It might also be that I am less familiar with the word "putative" and do not want to use it. In any case, if it's not currently in the standard model, then it is new.
>End of method summary: Are you talking about higher twists here? If so, I would add "called higher >twists", so that people now for sure what you mean. Also, is the now accepted PRL on resonance >relevant to this? If so, I would quote it. If not, I would still quote it somewhere, since this was >an necessary part of running this experiment (maybe when you talk about background and Rad. Cor.)
I added "also called "higher twist effects", and broke the sentence into two. The resonance PRL has little to do with higher twists. This is explained in detail (somewhat) in the expanded Methods section.
>Footnote of authors: The "now" are not capitalized while the last footnote is. Also, dot missing >after Thailand.
fixed.
>In the reference, sometimes the two initials of authors are quoted with a blank in between: ex: >"Prescott C. Y." and sometime not, ex: Anthony P.L. There are many other instances of both. You >should be consistent. In the main text, there is no blank in between the initials.
fixed.
>Sometimes you name the collaboration (E158, ALEPH, ZEUS, ATLAS,...) and sometimes not (E122, Hall >A,...). Should this be made consistent.
I followed what inspire gives me. Perhaps some collaborations want to have the name spelled out and some don't (like Hall A).
Xiaochao
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Xiaochao Zheng" <xiaochao at jlab.org>
> To: "halla coll" <halla_coll at jlab.org>, "halla parity" <halla_parity at jlab.org>, pvdis at jlab.org, "Jens Erler"
> <erler at fisica.unam.mx>, "Roy Holt" <holt at anl.gov>, "Kawtar Hafidi" <kawtar at anl.gov>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:41:58 AM
> Subject: [Halla_coll] PVDIS main paper v0.8
>
> Dear All:
>
> It has been over a year since we presented preliminary results from
> the 6 GeV PVDIS experiment at the JLab seminar (which happened on
> April 13th, 2012). Since then, we have been working on finalizing
> the analysis, publishing the resonance data, and recently also on
> the extraction of C2 and mass limits from asymmetries.
>
> Attached please find a draft paper on the main (DIS) physics results.
> As you will see from the date/version line, we would like to try
> submitting it to Nature first. Some of you may already knew that
> manuscripts submitted to Nature have a high rejection rate, but the
> good part is that it won't take too long (1-2 weeks) for us to know
> whether it pass the editor's screening.
>
> I'd like to see most of the comments and suggestions within one week
> from now, although I will continue reading them until we submit the
> paper. When sending me comments and suggestions, please use
> "Reply-to-All" if you can.
>
> Some details/remaining issues about the manuscript:
> - The style of Fig.1 needs to be improved. We are working on a better
> style, although the scale and the data will remain the same;
> - Given some time, Jens might perform another mass limit calculation
> which will be related to the specific combination of C1 and C2
> accessed through this experiment. The limit will be higher than
> Eq.(8). On the other hand, the difference is similar to a rotation
> in Fig.2: Eq.(8) corresponds to the vertical span of the red
> contour, while the C1/2-combined limit will correspond to a rotated
> axis, thus the higher value. At present I think the C2-only limits
> are crispier in physics, so have not included the C1/2 combined
> limit.
>
>
> Now some technical/formatting details (see
> http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/index.html)
>
> Nature does not provide latex template, but instructed that any
> "standard" template will do. Therefore I used the PRL template. Some
> more technical details:
>
> - The structure of the attached manuscript followed Nature author
> instructions, in particular the introduction paragraph (which
> followed the instruction for the "Summary paragraph");
> - This is supposed to be a Letter (not an Article);
> - Nature allows a short "Method Summary" section to go with the main
> paper. It can't exceed 300 words. The Method Summary will appear
> in-print with the main paper, but will NOT be linked online;
> - Nature allows the use of "Supplemental Material", which includes
> typically figures and tables. The two tables we plan to submit as
> the S.M. can be found on the last two pages of the "methods.pdf"
> file attached. The S.M. will be linked online but NOT in print.
> - If necessary, detailed information on the experiment can be
> provided in a separate "Methods" section, which allows up to 3000
> words. This section will only be linked online and not in-print;
> - Because of the different destination for the "Method Summary" and
> the "Methods" sections, the two are supposed to both give essential
> information about the experiment. So you will find some duplicated
> information between the two.
>
> The two attached PDF files correspond to:
> - the main Letter draft;
> - the Methods section with the last two pages being the Supplemental
> Material.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Xiaochao
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Associate Professor, Department of Physics, University of Virginia
> 382 McCormick Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22904
> Telephone: (434) 243-4032 (during academic year); or (757) 810-2885
> (summer)
> Homepage: http://people.virginia.edu/~xz5y/Main.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Halla_coll mailing list
> Halla_coll at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halla_coll
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PVDIS_nature_v0.82.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 143596 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/pvdis/attachments/20131021/393b281f/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Pvdis
mailing list