Subject: Re: Paper on fast monopoles (fwd)
From: Erik Katsavounidis (kats@ligo.mit.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 08 2001 - 15:36:08 EST
Hi all,
This is a late post on the MACRO-RARE and reflects the full
length of the second round of comments I sent to Ivan and Fausto
on February 19, 2001 with regards to their proposed paper.
It is posted here only for archival purposes as I noticed
that they posted their reply to the list too.
Regards,
--Erik
E. Katsavounidis
Massachusetts Institute of Technology | NW17-161
175 Albany Street | tel#: 617 258 9218
Cambridge, MA 02139 | fax#: 617 253 7014
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:48:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Erik Katsavounidis <kats@ligo.mit.edu>
To: Ivan De Mitri <ivan.demitri@le.infn.it>
Cc: Erik Katsavounidis <Erik.Katsavounidis@lngs.infn.it>,
marco.grassi@pi.infn.it, Fausto Guarino <fausto.guarino@na.infn.it>
Subject: Re: Paper on fast monopoles
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Ivan De Mitri wrote:
> Dear Erik and Marco,
>
> as a consequence of what we agreed with EK during the
> last rare particle working group meeting ......
>
> Going throught the comments/questions sent by EK in september
> we see that points 5 and 9 are still open.
>
> ...
>
> Please find tha latest paper version on avalon.lngs.infn.it
> Log in as "macro" with standard passwd and get the file
> papers/fastpa5.ps
>
>
Caro Ivan & Fausto,
I read your latest version of the paper. Unless this is a wrong
version that you placed on avalon.lngs.infn.it, I see rather few
things changed with respect to the original version you handed
to us back in September.
I understand it has been several years since you first talked
about this analysis approach and since then a MACRO/MEMO and
conference proceedings have been written with material from this
work. However, people have different thresholds when it comes to
commenting written documents. SO, I certainly wouldn't be
surprised if at the time of a journal paper proposal all aspects
of the analysis are examined.
>
> 5) We do not think that providing the effect of each cut in
> terms of the number of remaining events is necessary
> (remember that we are tring to limit the paper length).
> Moreover , this was not done in the previous macro
> papers on monopole searches.
> Last, in order to provide those numbers we should
> re-analyze the data. This work could hardly be done
> and would certainly introduce a furhter big delay (months)
> that we think is not acceptable.
>
I remain rather purplexed from your statement that you can
not provide the numbers on the effects of your various cuts
of the analysis. You mentioned that this analysis is going to
analyze the remainder of the MACRO data, so even if these
numbers were not kept in a compact form at the time the proposed
analysis was carried out, it must be rather straightforward
to reproduce it. Being a technical paper, I feel, the effects
of the various cuts on the background rejection is a very important
piece of information- people who might be reading this paper
and designing new experiments will probably look for these
numbers.
My September comments on the scintillator energy calibrations
resulted in removing the word "attenuated" from the first
paragraph of your calibrations sections. You do understand though
that the remainding of the discussion on the lasers and their use
to measure the non-linear response is academic. We simply do not
do this in standard calibrations. In addition the reasoning
behind using the attenuated ADC vs. non attenuated (p.5, third
paragraph), is rather irrelevant if you are setting an energy
threshold below the saturation of the non-attenuated ADC (which
actually has a better energy resolution at that range).
My proposal to you is to eliminate any discussion on the calibrations-
let it be done properly in the technical paper. The only thing
that I would actually keep out of the entire calibration discussion
is the dE/dx plot and the Landau fit that you had in your
original draft but not in this one. I think this is a key plot
that should be re-inserted (after you correct the axis and give
more info on the fit).
Back on the dE/dx vs. beta point: I think the paper cries for
a plot like that when you write at the end of p.13 "the measured
values of energy loss and beta of surviving candidates have been
compared with the expected monopole signal as a function
of its velocity..." What can be drawn from a plot like that
is how close to the monopole curve the point lies especially
after showing their errors on energy which could potentially
justify their checking on the CR39.
You are concerned about the size of the paper and so am I.
I think there is a number of plots that can easily be removed
without any impact on the significance of the paper- these are:
1) ERP ADC vs Light Output (fig 3) -- already shown in ref.
not relevant for this search
2) Efficiency vs Scintillator ID number (fig 9) -- too detailed
3) Fig 10 fraction of scint wiwth e>0.95
4) Fig 2 - that makes part of the calibration discussion
5) Fig 11 - too technical
Finally, I'm not sure I understand your following reply:
>
> 6) Considering the results of the CR-39 analisys
> (and the need of keep the paper length as short as possible),
> we judge that this plot is not necessary and we prefer not
> to include it.
>
I think the paper may become stronger if a study of the
correlation between the streamer based charge and the scintillator
based energy is also performed. Some disconnected comments and
questions that came up at the second reading of the paper:
Fig. 1 is the Streamer Tube position in this figured obtained
from fast or slow tracking? If you analyze any further ERP data
or re-analyze any past data, please make sure you use the new ERP
constants. If you provide me with the source tex file I can
work on shaping the scintillator calibrations section together
with direct editing of some phrasing/english suggestions that
I have or I can fax you the pages.
>
> Let us know. Ciao,
> Ivan & Fausto
A presto,
--Erik
PS: I think you should still look items #3,4,6 of my September note where
there are minor discrepancies that need to be corrected.
If you have a postscript version of your 1997 related MACRO/MEMO
I'll be glad to read it through. Or if you fax it to me at
001 617 253 7014.
E. Katsavounidis
Massachusetts Institute of Technology | NW17-161
175 Albany Street | tel#: 617 258 9218
Cambridge, MA 02139 | fax#: 617 253 7014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Mar 08 2001 - 15:40:51 EST