ECCE Public Announcements

[Garth Huber <garth.huber AT uregina.ca>]

I've read over the paper, and my comments for improvement are attached.

As I briefly mentioned in this morning's WG meeting, it is obvious that the
various section authors have written their respective parts in isolation from
each other.  As a result, there are various inconsistencies and lack of
awareness of what is being discussed in the various sections that needs to be
fixed before the paper is ready for wider circulation.  As a starting point, I
recommend that each of the various Sec 4 authors read the other parts of this
section that they did not work on, and think about how to revise their 
sections
so that the paper comes across as a more coherent work.  Some specific examples 
are given in the attachment.

Regards, Garth Huber
---

Zisis Papandreou wrote:
> Hi folks:
> I did a 1st pass through the paper, up to and including section 4.5.  I will 
> look more after Monday, when the other sections are ready. (Including 4.7, ...)
> Content looks good and overall the sections read well.
> Rachel and Bill, I have annotated a version I downloaded on May 6, at 16:24 CST. 
>   My comments are here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.dropbox.com/s/8rdj9jrisqtrh0x/ecce_paper_phys_2022_02_May6-1624CST_zp.pdf?dl=0__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!AESQp_fDq-Qy0Zv9QIjPaLo2f9VMuhj1pRZJ6Ru_pMFC4ZbhWYx9dVESlrcxL9bIfeOvmFhvmbj4hStMmX0YDcvySjDi0SZOqeNz2w$ 
> If it is convenient -- and does not add confusion -- I can enter most of those 
> in Overleaf.  Please advise.
> Cheers, Zisis...
> Dr. Zisis Papandreou
> Head, Department of Physics
> Professor of Physics, Ph.D, P.Phys.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Department of Physics
> University of Regina
> 3737 Wascana Parkway
> Regina, SK  S4S 0A2 CANADA
> *Phone: (306) 585-5379*
> Fax: (306) 585-5659
> Email: zisis AT uregina.ca <mailto:zisis AT uregina.ca>
> Website: 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.uregina.ca/science/physics/people/faculty-research/zisis-papandreou/__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!AESQp_fDq-Qy0Zv9QIjPaLo2f9VMuhj1pRZJ6Ru_pMFC4ZbhWYx9dVESlrcxL9bIfeOvmFhvmbj4hStMmX0YDcvySjDi0Sac1wNt6A$ 
>
> > > > "Wenliang (Bill) Li" <billlee AT jlab.org> 05/03/2022, 12:01 PM >>>
>
> Dear all,
>
> This email will provide a timeline regarding the complication and internal 
> review of the Exclusive, Diffractive & Tagging summary paper.
>
> Here we would like to thank the review team for leading the internal group 
> review: G. Huber, Z. Papandreou, J. Roche, A. Schmidt,
> The plan is as the following:
> By tomorrow (May 4) at 10:00 am EDT, Sections 1, 2, and 4 (except 4.6) will be 
> ready for the internal group review.
> By Monday (May 9) at 10:00 am EDT, Sections 3, 4.6, and 6 will be ready for the 
> internal group review.
> Monday (May 9), we will present our paper at the ECCE bi-weekly meeting to the 
> consortium.
> Friday (May 13), the paper will be ready for comments from the consortium.
> Please let us if you have any suggestions or comments on this plan.
> Greatly appreciate the individuals who worked hard on polishing the studies, we 
> would like to *emphasize the importance of the common standard on how we present 
> our plots*.
> For important key figures, we must polish them to the following standard:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nbviewer.org/github/ECCE-EIC/tutorials/blob/master/ECCEStyle/ECCEStyle-Python.ipynb__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!AESQp_fDq-Qy0Zv9QIjPaLo2f9VMuhj1pRZJ6Ru_pMFC4ZbhWYx9dVESlrcxL9bIfeOvmFhvmbj4hStMmX0YDcvySjDi0Sawrw0g2A$ 
> I also included a few great examples in the attachment. We don't want to ask 
> everyone to use the same template, please preserve a few common features when 
> generating the key plot which includes: the ECCE label, scattering 
> configuration, and readable axis labels.
> Please consider using the following style script to standardize the font or 
> configuration (download them to your local directory):
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ECCE-EIC/macros/master/common/ECCEStyle.C__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!AESQp_fDq-Qy0Zv9QIjPaLo2f9VMuhj1pRZJ6Ru_pMFC4ZbhWYx9dVESlrcxL9bIfeOvmFhvmbj4hStMmX0YDcvySjDi0SafWZY8MA$ 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ECCE-EIC/macros/master/common/ECCEStyle.h__;!!P4SdNyxKAPE!AESQp_fDq-Qy0Zv9QIjPaLo2f9VMuhj1pRZJ6Ru_pMFC4ZbhWYx9dVESlrcxL9bIfeOvmFhvmbj4hStMmX0YDcvySjDi0Sbwv6js3g$ 
> To use them, please you can use the following root macro command to trigger the 
> style:
>      gInterpreter->Declare("""#include \"ECCEStyle.C\"""");
>      gInterpreter->ProcessLine("SetECCEStyle()");
> The ECCE label can be generated with the following TLegend example:
>      auto legend1 = new TLegend(.35,.75,.65,.93);
>      gStyle->SetLegendBorderSize(0);
>      legend1->AddEntry("","#it{#bf{ECCE}} Simulation","");
>      legend1->AddEntry("","e+p 18+275 GeV","");
> For the intermediary plots, please remove the overhead labels and reduce the 
> white space on the plot. Please also double-check the bin sizes: choppy-looking 
> plots should be re-binned to show a smoother shape.
> We would like to ask the interviewer to pay special attention to figure/plot 
> quality.
> Finally, the WG has decided on the author list strategy (by vote). Our summary 
> paper will first list all students and postdocs in alphabetical order, followed 
> by all members of the WG in alphabetical order, then the rest of the consortium 
> in alphabetical order.
> Many thanks
> Bill on behalf of Exclusive, Diff & Tagg WG

--
Dr. Garth Huber, Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Regina, Regina, SK S4S0A2, Canada.
tel: 1-306-585-4240. fax: 1-306-585-5659.
Comments on ECCE Exclusive, Diffractive and Tagging Paper

Garth Huber   22.05.10
---

Need a Title, how about something like:
"Detector Requirements and Simulation Results for the EIC Exclusive,
Diffractive and Tagging Physics Program using the ECCE Detector Concept"

Sec 1 -- very well written.  No comments.

Sec 2.2.2

"The estimated energy resolution is shown in Figure 3"
Sorry, but this is a plot of energy deposit per layer ID for photons and
neutrons.  I assume there is a mislabelling issue with Fig 4?  However, if 
this
is the case, then I should also note that Fig 3 is not referenced from the
text, so this would also need to be added.

Sec 2.4.0

"The parameters of the B0 detector are ... shown in Figure.90 for IP6 as an
example"
There is no Figure 90.

Fig 6: it might be helpful to label in the figure the direction of the 
electron
and hadron beams in the two beampipes.

Sec 3

Fig 11 on the Simulation Workflow has a pink text and arrow on the left side
"Validation needed".  I vaguely recall this was shown in a WG meeting, where 
at
that time some validation of this step was actually called for.  However, for
the paper we presume that this validation was completed, and this text should
be removed.

Sec 4

As I briefly mentioned in this morning's WG meeting, it is obvious that the
various section authors have written their respective parts in isolation from
each other.  As a result, there are various inconsistencies and lack of
awareness of what is being discussed in the various sections that needs to be
fixed before the paper is ready for wider circulation.  As a starting point, I
recommend that each of the various Sec 4 authors read the other parts of this
section that they did not work on, and think about how to revise their 
sections
so that the paper comes across as a more coherent work.  I give two notable
examples below.

T-RECONSTRUCTION RESOLUTION:
This is clearly an important issue, and it is raised on various forms in all
parts of Sec 4.

Sec 4.1: The discussion on the t-reconstruction resolution is highly detailed.
However, just before Sec 4.1.2 a reference is made "... similar to the finding
reported by the DVCS working group in the EIC Yellow Report".  This probably
should instead refer to similar conclusions in Secs 4.5,4.8 in this paper, and
done in a way leads to a logical chain of thought in the paper.

Sec 4.2: This section is not explicit on how the t-reconstruction was done and
how smearing was applied.  Given that it's a SF measurement, I assume it's
t=(p_p-p_n)^2.  But this should be more explicit, simply saying it's done the
same way as Sec 4.1 would suffice.

Also, in the extra information in Sec 5.3, "the deviation deltat=t-t_truth" it
should be made clear on how t is calculated.

Sec 4.4: The t-reconstruction is described in Sec 4.4.2 "The first one is 
based
solely on reconstruction from e'+gamma, whilst the second correespond to the
more standard definitino, which is t=(p-p')^2.  in this study both methods 
gave
roughly identical results, however we chose to work with the latter"
I'm somewhat surprised about this statement, given that Secs 4.1,4.8 found the
opposite.  Could any further information about this be added?

Sec 4.5: The t-reconstruction is described in Sec 4.5.2 "The momentum transfer
t can be calculated using the reconstructed helium...  This analysis primarily
uses the totally exclusive version, where the scattered helium was detected 
and
its momentum smeared, ...   These secondary plots of the t distribution using
the electron and photon are included for reference and comparison only in the
next section".  I agree that the plots comparing the t-reconstruction via the
two different methods would be very useful.  However, I could not find them,
maybe they are missing?

Also, it sounds like the conclusion on which t-reconstruction version is 
better
are somewhat different between e+p DVCS (two methods are similar) and e+A DVCS
(comparison not explicit, but it sounds like nucleus version is better).  If
this is really the case, it probably bears a comment on why they are so
different.

Sec 4.6: No information is given in Sec 4.6.2 on how t is calculated.  Given
the various conclusions in other sections on which method gives better t
reconstruction, this should be made explicit.  Also, is the variable
appropriately smeared?

Sec 4.7: How t is reconstructed is explained well in Sec 4.7.2

Sec 4.8: The necessary information is in Sec 4.8.5: "We do not consider the
resolutions for these variables as they depend on particles detected in the 
far
forward/backard systems.  It is clear from the -t distribution (calculated 
from
e- and reconstructed meson) that even with perfect electron momentum the meson
reconstructino leads to a large uncertainty on t.  Use of the far forward
detctors may offer a more favorable measure of this variable."
I think this information is complete as is.  I list it here for reference for
the authors of the other sections.

---
SIMULATION INCONSISTENCIES:
In some parts of the paper, all used quantities are smeared, while in other
parts they are not.  However, the parts where the smearing was not applied, 
the
wording implies that smearing was not available in the simulation, which is
contradicted by the fact that smeared results are shown elsewhere.  I'm not
asking for these analyses to be redone, but the wording has to be changed to
reflect this difference.

Sec 4.3: At the end of Sec 4.3.2 is written "The reconstruction was not ready
for the far forward region simulation therefore we use only the truth
information these two spectator protons in the analysis".
This wording needs to be revised given my comment above.  I expect the referee
and reader to want to know what effect this will have on the A1n analysis
conclusions, so some comment on the expected difference when full smearing is
applied should be made.

Sec 4.5: In Sec 4.5.2 is written "Currently the analysis uses truth momentum
values, as there is optical reconstruction of momentum in the far forward
detectors is limited".  Similarly this needs to be revised, as smeared 
momentum
reconstruction is available in the far forward detector simulation shown in
other parts of the paper.  Also, do you expect the conclusions in the section
to be changed very much when more realistic smearing is used?

---
Other comments on Sec 4

Fig 18: The rates figure is for L=10^{34}/cm/s.  This is probably 
over-optimistic,
given that the integrated luminosities in the paper are all for 10${40}/cm, so
maybe the figure should be rescaled to for an initial EIC luminosity.

Sec 4.2: Many missing references, such as HERA TDIS data, pionic Drell-Yan
data, COMPASS++/AMBER, and JLab 12 GeV TDIS.

Figs 20,23,24,25: There is way too much wasted white space in all of these
figures.  Their axes should be re-scaled so that the space is used more
effectively.
Figs 84,87,88,89: Same complaint.  Way too much wasted white space.

Sec 4.4: the paragraph indentation seems to be missing from this section, 
which
is very weird.

Sec 4.4: There is still some missing text "For the ep-DVCS study we used the
MILOU3D generator that is available on the ..."  What is ...?

And again later in this section "required the far-forward region (eta>3.5) 
that
is described in section ..."  The missing text needs to be added.

And in Sec 4.4.1: "As described in section [???] a realistic geometry of the 
B0
detector"  The missing section reference needs to be added.

And near the end of Sec 4.4.2 is a missing fig number "Figure shows the
projected precision and coverage of ep-DVCS"

Fig 36: the x-axis labels and the caption texts are too small to be readable.
Similarly in Fig 37, the text for the various legends is a bit small, maybe
there is a way to reduce the amount of text on the figure to improve
legibility?

Sec 4.5.4: Lots of broken latex, such as Q2, xb, Phi, that needs to be fixed.
Also, undefined jargon such as F4A and YR needs to be either avoided, or
defined earlier in the paper and used consistently throughout.

Also in this section "across the entire region of generated space which is a
*fantastic development*"  Such language needs to be avoided in a publication.

Sec 4.7: Q'^2 is used first in Sec 4.7.1 but it is not defined until Sec. 
4.7.2
Variables should be defined when they are first used. 

Fig 50: It should be stated in the caption what reaction this figure is for,
since it is not indicated in the figure.

Figs 60,61: These figures are way too small to be able to read much of 
anything
on them.  I suggest to reduce the number of beam energy combinations that are
shown, so that the remaining combinations can be doubled in size.
Figs 62-71: Similar complaint that these figures are too small, but they are
not quite as bad in this as Figs 60,61.

---