HalBpaperReview

Sigma0

http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/wiki/index.php/Ohio-g11-sigma0

File:Lamgam.pdf

Carman's suggestions

D.S. Carman comments on Sig*0 radiative decay paper.

Page 1.

 Abstract.
   Line 4. Use "...0.12\%, where the ...".
   Line 6. Awkward mention of Taylor work. I suggest leaving his name
     until the body of the paper. How about "... but consistent within
     uncertainties with the only other published result."?
 PACS numbers. Missing
 Left Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Line 5. Use "point-like".
     Line 8. Use "... more complex than the CQM representation, with ...".
     Line 10. Use "... of the spin resulting from a combination ...".
     Line 11. Use "... and the orbital motion ...".
     Line 13. Use "... baryons, yet somehow ...".
     Line 16. Use "... electromagnetic decays of excited ...".
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 1. Use "... the electromagnetic (EM) transitions ...".
     Line 3. Use "... between EM decays and strong ...".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 6. Ref.[10] is not necessary here. Isn't this assertion clear
       in Ref.[12]?
 Right Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Line 8. Use "... which in turn, constrains ...".
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 3. The meaning of "at roughly the same level" is not clear.
     Line 5. Use "... quark models, provides a ...".
     Line 7. A reference is needed here.
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 4. I suggest "... EM days [11] (also from CLAS data) ...".
     Line 7. Use "... and, subsequently, a better control ...".

Page 2.

 Table I.
   Caption. Use "... for the models referenced in the text and the
     experimental values for the ...".
   In the last line use "Experiment [4]".
   Comment. You list decay widths here, but for the Sig*0, these values
     are not directly comparable to what you measure as you quote the
     ratio of the Lamda+gamma to Lambda+pi0 decays. Do you have information
     from any of the models to quote your form of the decay ratio?
 Left Column.
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 7. Use "... and a lower data acquisition speed, ...".
     Line 8. Use "... required that at least ...".
     Line 9. Use "... particles were detected [25], and used a higher ...".
     Line 11. Use "... data set had over 20 times more useful ...".
     Line 12. Use "... than the g1 data set.".
     Line 13. Add Ref. to Taylor work here.
     Line 14. Use "... CLAS results from g11 give a great ...".
     Line 15. Use "... of this data set [25].".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 4. Add a comma after the reaction.
     Line 15. I suggest "... to study and to determine the systematic
       uncertainty associated with the measurement.".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 2. Use "4.019-GeV".
 Right Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Line 4. Use "40-cm long".
     Line 5. Use "... sat 10 cm upstream from ...".
     Line 6. Use "... a two charged particle trigger ...".
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 3. Is this quoted probability of 1.3% from Simon's work?
     Line 4. Use "... decays weakly with 63.9 ... to p\pi^-$ [4], ...".
     Line 6. Remove Ref.[4] from end of sentence. Also, use "... are
       tracked by the CLAS drift chambers  through the magnetic field
       of the spectrometer, giving their momentum, and are detected by
       the time-of-flight scintillators, ...".
     Line 10. Use "... and momentum via the missing mass technique.".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 2. Use "... particles was calculated from the measured ...".

Page 3.

 Fig. 1 caption.
   Line 2. Use "... (X)$, where the $\pi^+$ ...".
   Line 3. Use "... dotted line at 0.01~GeV$^2$ indicates the ...".
 Fig. 2 comment. Show cuts on the plot and update the caption to
   describe the cut lines.
 Fig. 3 caption.
   Line 2. Describe dashed lines in the caption.
 Left Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Line 2. Use "... scintillator wall at the outside of the CLAS ...".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 3. Use "... to the detected particle energy.".
     Line 5. Use "... wall, target scattering chamber, and the ...".
 Right Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Line 13. Use "... 0.01~GeV$^2$ is used so as not to cut into ...".
     Line 15. Use "Reactions involving decays such as $\rho ...".
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 4. Use "... Gaussian of width $\sigma = ...".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 1. Use "... 1.43~GeV, one can study ...".
     Line 4. Use "... the kaon and the $K^*$(892).".
   Paragraph 4.
     Line 1. Use "After including all of the cuts listed above, the ...".
     Line 4. Use "... of counts about zero missing ...".
     Line 7. Use "higher-mass".
     Line 8. Use "... continues into the zero missing ...".

Page 4.

 Fig. 4 caption.
   Line 2. Describe dashed line in the caption.
 Fig. 5.
   Comment. I don't feel like you have adequately described the
     events at negative missing mass and how they might contribute
     to the Lambda+gamma and Lambda+pi0 events.
 Left Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Comment. It seems in this paragraph you want to mention that you
       need to separate non-Lambda+gamma and non-Lambda+pi0 events from
       the events of interest.
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 1. Use "... technique employed in this analysis ...".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 4. Use "... introduced, where $f_k$ ...".
 Right Column.
   Paragraph 2.
     Equation needs a number.
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 4. Use "We then introduce a variable ...".
     Line 5. Use "... equation, which are the Lagrange multipliers that
       are used ...".
     Eq.(3). Add a comma at the end for proper punctuation.
     Line 2 after Eq.(3). You should state where the covariance matrix
       comes from in this fitting. It is not some abstract quantity.
     Line 7 after Eq.(3). Use "... from the fit. These values are used ...".
   Paragraph 4.
     Line 3. Use "... cell, the scattering chamber, and the ...".

Page 5.

 Fig. 6 caption.
   Line 2. Use "... (right) for the reaction ...".
   Line 3. Add a period at the end of the sentence. Also, describe the
     dashed line in the figure caption.
 Fig. 7 caption.
   Line 1. Use "confidence level".
   Line 2. Use "... distribution for a missing ...".
 Left Column.
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 3. The sentence that begins "The differential cross sections 
       from data ..." is misleading as it implies that you have actually
       used your data to measure these quantities. You have not.
     Line 4. Use "... cross sections from data ...".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 10. Use "... P_y^2)$, it is possible ...".
     Line 13. Use units with c=1 for consistency.
   Paragraph 4.
     Line 13. Your notation is getting confusing here. You use p_x with
       x standing for missing momentum component, momentum component, and
       missing particle. I would suggest using "X" for missing particle
       quantities. Check usage throughout paper.
     Comment. I would suggest you add a statement as to why you do not
       employ the Sig*0 mass as an explicit constraint in your kinematic
       fit.
   Paragraph 5.
     Line 1. Use "To separate the contributions ...". 
     Line 2. Use "... decay ($\Lambda \gamma$) and the strong ...".
 Right Column.
   Paragraph 2.
     Eq.(5). Give the reference for this equation.
     Comment. I would suggest that you explicitly mention the "ideal"
       fit gives P_1 close to unity (with whatever caveats you think are
       needed).
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 3. Use "... of freedom from Eq.(5), see Fig. 7A.".
     Line 4. Use "... Fig. 7B is reasonably flat for the vast majority
       of events.".
     Line 5. You should describe events in the peak about zero.
   Paragraph 4.
     Line 4. Use "... of freedom, a fit to obtain ...".

Page 6.

 Fig. 8 
   Caption line 1. Use "confidence level".
   Comment. I would show the fit from Eq.(5) overlaid and give the
     parameters.
 Fig. 9.
   Comment 1. This plot is too small to read, especially the number of
     entries, which I think is important information to clearly provide.
   Comment 2. What do you mean by the last sentence? Aren't these spectra
     directly from the kinematic fit?
 Left Column.
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 5. Use "... retaining the high confidence ...".
     Line 8. You state "Any other background is expected to be very ...",
      is this relative to Lambda+gamma or Lambda+pi0? This makes a
      difference in the scale that you communicate to the reader.
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 1. Remove the comma after P.
     Line 5. Use "... of the data were generated for a given ratio ...".
     Line 7. Use "... both the increase in statistical ...".
     Line 7. The sentence "The optimization occurs when considering ..."
       confuses me. What do you mean by "MC ratio "recovery" uncertainty?
     Line 9. Use "... in the MC ratio ...".
     Line 12. Use "Again, the statistical uncertainty ...".
     Line 14. Use "... are considered in the ...".
   Paragraph 5.
     Line 2. Use "... fit. It now looks more like a ...".
   Paragraph 6.
     Line 3. Use "... taking the low confidence level ...".
 Right Column.
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 2. Use "... radiative signals, the final ...".
     Line 3. Use "... for each case can be seen ...".
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 4. Use "... contributions from $\Lambda(1405) ...".

Page 7.

 Table II caption.
   Line 1. Use "... the branching ratio.".
   Line 2. Use "... 10\% cut. The uncertainties listed are ...".
 Left Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Line 1. I suggest "... for the branching ratio 
       $R=N_{\Lambda \gamma}/N_{\Lambda \pi}$ is".
     Line 9 after Eq.(8). Use "... fact that the background underneath ...".
     Line 14 after Eq.(8). Use "... A_\gamma^\Sigma)$, so that ...".
     Comment. Eq.(6) and Eqs.(7),(8) are not going to be understandable
       by many. I suggest a brief appendix added to the paper where a
       "skeleton" derivation of Eq.(6) is provided to assist the reader.
   Paragraph 2.
     Lines 3 and 5. Subscript should be pi not pi0.
     Line 5. You state "Using this form ...". What "form" are you
       referring to?
     Line 6. Use "... for the corrections, an estimate ...".
 Right Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Add comma after Eq.(12).
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 7. Give the Lam(1405) branching ratio here.
   Paragraph 3.
     Line 1. Use "... to find $n_\Lambda$, one can look ...".
   Paragraph 4.
     Line 1. Use "... simulations normalizing to the data over the
       range XXX ...".
     Comment. This paragraph should be merged with the previous paragraph..
     Comment. Explicitly mention the relevant yields from the fits for
       Lam+gam, Lam+pi0, Lam(1405).

Page 8.

 Fig. 11.
   Comment 1. The fit parameters are not necessary to include for the
     background.
   Comment 2. Make figure so that it is readable in black and white. 
     Describe the different line types/curves in the caption.
   Comment 3. Make x-axis label complete by listing the reaction on the
     axis like you did for your other plots.
   Caption.
     Line 1. List the complete reaction like you did for the other plots.
     Line 2. What do you mean by "lower hyperon restrictions"?
 Left Column.
   Paragraph 1.
     Line 3 after Eq.(13). Use "... 1/3, is the decay ...".
     Eq.(14) comment. The equation looks a bit awkward somehow. Move the
       top part to the left and the bottom part to the right.
     Line 1 after Eq.(14). Use "... \pi^0)$ from Eq.(13) and ...".
   Paragraph 2.
     Line 1. State a number for the K* events.
   Results section.
     Section heading. Use "RESULTS" for consistency with other labels.
     Comments. I think you need a better/more complete discussion on the
       systematic uncertainties. They are such an important part of the
       measurement quoted here and your section is too sketchy. I like the
       table in the analysis note (although perhaps it could be condensed 
       at bit).
 Right Column.
   Eq.(15). Should end in a period for proper punctuation.

Page 9.

 - Put refs in order cited. It looks like [10],[11],[12] need checking.
 - [11]. Isn't the second part of this ref. an errata?
 - [17]. Use "... Soyeur, Phys. ...".
 - [20]. Use "... Scoccola, and ...".
 - [26]. Remove spurious space after "et al.".
 - [27]. Remove spurious space after "et al.".
 - [28]. Include a URL to this "internal" CLAS link.