Home » Groups » STAR Protected

Comments to Run 2011/2012 W paper draft (Version 1.0)

Updated on Wed, 2013-11-20 23:16. Originally created by surrow on 2013-11-20 18:10.

W 2011/2012 Paper draft: Version 1.0

(A) Abstract:

The abstract needs to be strengthen to highlight the result coming out from
this analysis. The current abstract is too generic. Your punch line needs to
be incorporated here already:

“…a preference for a sizable, positive delta ubar in the range of x>0.05 is found..."

Incorporating this already in the abstract is important to make clear what
is really new compared to the first analysis.

(B) Introduction (Page 1, First 2 paragraphs, Line 14-37):

You need a few sentences at a higher level. The introduction for a PRL
paper is way too technical. 

(C) Measurement (Page 1, 3rd paragraph, Line 38-52):

You correctly emphasize that quark and antiquark distributions are directly
probed and then continue to talk about party violation. It is however to simplistic
to state that asymmetries ‘are large’. This statement depends on your eta range. I 
would therefore rephrase this:

“The measurement of the longitudinal single-spin asymmetry AL utilizes
the parity violating nature of the underlying hard process of W boson
production which provides direct access to quark and antiquark distributions.”

(D) Data sample (Page 1, 4th paragraph, Line 53-64)

Why are you not quoting the individual luminosities for 2011 and 2012? You
quote the individual polarizations. You should really do this!

(E) Figure  1: Upper right distribution for e-, |eta|<0.5

What is the reason for the difference between W MC and the STAR data around 25GeV? 

Are the distributions for 2011+2012? How do they look separately?

(F) Reference to 2009 inclusive jet paper:

Can you really reference a paper ‘in preparation’ in PRL? I would reference here the
prelim. result!

(G) Background estimation (Page 2, 2nd paragraph):

It is perfectly fine to reference a previous STAR paper for the background discussion. However,
nobody will understand what you mean with 'data-driven QCD' and especially not with ‘second
EEMC’. This needs to be improved!

(H) Figure 2:

The discrepancy for the signed-pT variable is not discussed. What is this due to? This appears
in the signal region. Why is that?

Again, are the distributions for 2011+2012? How do they look separately?

(I) Charge-sign separation:

What is the level of the charge-sign separation quoted in sigma? You have to Gaussian fits? Is
this for 2011 and 2012? If not, how does it look separately? You have to quote these numbers
and not simply state the level of contamination.

(J) Z calibration peak: Figure 3

It is very nice to have the Z calibration peak. You then write about the
calorimeter energy scale, but you are not quantifying it. What is it then? 

(K) Figure 4:

I understood that you will still include the Soffer prediction. Correct? This is still missing!

Can you separate statistical and systematic uncertainties? How else would a reader get an
understanding what your errors really mean, i.e. is the measurement statistics and systematics
dominated? There are differences between W- and W+. It is important to quantify that!

(L) Physics message:

You are missing a physics discussion about AL for Z production and ALL for W production. Why bother
showing it in a PRL paper if you are not discussing the relevance? The discussion of Soffer’s prediction
is missing still!


Groups: