* the 1st draft http://neutrino.kek.jp/internal/papers/nc1pi0/2004ktpi0_1st.pdf * the 2nd draft http://neutrino.kek.jp/internal/papers/nc1pi0/2004ktpi0_2nd.pdf * the 3rd draft (new) http://neutrino.kek.jp/internal/papers/nc1pi0/2004ktpi0.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-1) On page 5, the first par. I noticed that all the nuclear effects are carefully enumerated and referenced, however there is no mention of the pionless Delta decay (Delta+N-->NN), which is added to Neut on top of the model by Salcedo et al. I think it's a large effect and should be mentioned. A-1) We added the following sentence. "A twenty percent suppression of pion production is adopted for simulating pion-less $\Delta$ decay, where the event contains only a lepton and a nucleon in the final state ~\cite{Singh:1998ha}." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-2) p. 2, 3rd paraq: .... located 250 km far from KEK... should be "away" instead of "far" A-2) We correced. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-3) p.3, 2nd par: ....is also recorded for every beam spill add: ---- A-3) We added. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-4) p.3, 2nd par .....the same algorithms as used .... add: ---- A-4) We added. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-5) p.3, end of 2nd par: ....The momentum of each ring ..... Rings do not have momenta. Maybe: "The momentum corresponding to each ring...." A-5) We corrected. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-6) p.4, end of 2nd par: ... and is subtracted before an efficiency correction. This seems like out of context here. No efficiency correction has been discussed yet. On the other hand one should describe Fig.3b here. A-6) We removed "before an efficiency correction". -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-7) p5. 1st par: ... are tracked in consideration of their inelastic scat.... I'd change: "in consideration" to "taking into account" A-7) We agree. We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-8) p5. 4th par This par seems to me quite unclear. -First I'd put "fiducial volume correction" instead of "fiducial correction" -...The factor,1.02, is multiplied... It does not say is multiplied BY WHAT. Maybe instead: "The data are then multiplied by 1.02 in order...." and at the end of the same sentence I'd put: ...fiducial volume before the efficiency correction is applied. instead of: "without the efficiency correction." A-8) We agree. We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-9) please change the Polish grant number to: 1P03B03826 A-9) We changed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-10) page-1, 1st paragraph, 2nd line planned -> future (current and future .. is better I guess) A-10) We changed. "present and planned" -> "current and future" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-11) page-1, 1st paragraph, 4th line the strongest limitation -> a limitation, or a severe limitation, or a strong limitation * I am not sure which people understand that it is the STRONGEST limitation. A-11) We changed. "the strongest limitation" -> "a severe limitation" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-12) page-1, 2nd paragraph, 1st line A single pi^0 production events -> A single pi^0 events *I am not confident which is better, but I just wonder which a general reader understand what is the pi^0 production events. A-12) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-13) page-1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line an imaging Cherenkov detector -> an imaging water Cherenkov detector A-13) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-14) page-1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line a decay of a produced pi^0 -> a decay of the pi^0 A-14) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-15) page 2, 1st paragraph, 4th line in LBL experiments, -> in LBL experiments with a water Cherenkov detector, A-15) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-16) page 2, 1st paragraph, 5th line due to highly asymmetric or small opening angle pi^0 decays -> due to highly asymmetric energies or small opening angle of two photons in the pi^0 decay. A-16) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-17) page 2, 3rd paragraph, 6th line (and FIG. 1) at the near site -> at 300~m downstream from the target in the near site * FIG. 1 depends on the distance from the target. So we should clarify the distance from the target since the near site does not mean the location of the detector. A-17) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-18) page 3, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line timing information of each hit -> timing information of each PMT hit identified as the charge greater than the signal of one-third photo-electrons. * You use "hit" without definition. If you want, you can explain it with your own text. A-18) We changed. "... of each hit." -> "... of each PMT hit over a threshold of about $1/4$ photoelectrons" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-19) page 3, 2nd paragraph, 5th line a signal by a 6 MeV electron -> a signal of a 6 MeV electron ??????? * I do not know which is better, "by" or "of". Please be checked by a native speaker. A-19) We selected "of". -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-20) page 3, 3rd paragraph, 4th line The visible energy is .. -> ???????? * Is "the visible" energy clear for a general reader? If you do not think so, please add the explanation. A-20) We think that "the visible energy" is acceptable. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-21) page 3, 5th paragraph, 2nd line If the maximum number of photoelectrons on a single .... -> An exiting particle deposits a large amount of energy at the PMT of the exiting position. Therefore, the FC events are selected by requiring the maximum number of photoelectrons on a single PMT at the exit direction of the most energetic particle less than 200. The events with the maximum number of photoelectrons greater than 200 are identified as a partially contained (PC) event. * I do not think that a reader can understand why 200 cut selects FC. So, I add one sentence for the explanation. A-21) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-22) page 4, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line The single pi^0 sample contains various non-NC1pi^0 events ... -> The single pi^0 sample contains a background of non-NC1pi^0 events .... A-22) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-23) page 5, 2nd paragraph, 7th line the target nucleus (10%) and non-pi^0 .... -> the target nucleus (10%), and non pi^0 ... A-23) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-24) page 5, 5th paragraph, 3rd line only one ring in highly asymmetric or small .... -> only one ring for the pi^0 decay with highly asymmetric energies or small opening angle of two photons. A-24) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-25) page 5, 6th paragraph, 4th line the distribution predicted by the neutrino Monte Carlo simulation. * No explanation for the MC systematic errors shown in FIG.4 A-25) We added the following sentence. "The Monte Carlo histogram is normalized by the number of total neutrino events in the fiducial volume, which are selected by cuts (i) to (v) as previously described. The size of outer boxes for the Monte Carlo histogram represents the uncertainty of the distribution shape of NC1$\pizero$ momentum due to neutrino interaction model ambiguity, where the largest source is nuclear effects for pions in $^{16}$O." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-26) In FIG. 4 caption, The size of outer boxes represents the systematic error on shape due to the uncertainties of neutrino interaction models. * A reader may confuse why you double count the neutrino interaction model uncertainties for data systematic error and the MC systematic error. I think that you need to explain the systematic errors on the MC prediction. A-26) We changed the expression to avoid confusion. "the systematic error on shape due to the uncertainties of neutrino interaction models" -> "the uncertainty of the distribution shape due to neutrino interaction model ambiguity" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-27) page 6, 1st paragraph, 3rd line since the expected mean neutrino energy of the CC sample, 1.45 GeV, is almost ... -> since the expected mean energy of interacting neutrinos in the CC sample .... * I am not sure that my corrected sentence is good. I find that we have a title of "a 1.3 GeV wide band muon neutrino beam" in the paper. If we write "the expected mean neutrino energy of the CC sample is 1.45 GeV", a reader may be confused which is a correct mean neutrino energy, 1.3 GeV or 1.45 GeV. I just want to avoid the confusion by writing "mean energy of interacting neutrinos". A-27) We changed the expression. "the expected mean neutrino energy of --" -> "the expected mean energy of neutrinos producing --" -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-28) page 7, 1st paragraph, 3rd line ring type in multi-ring events and the peak counting of PMTSUM signal. -> ring type in multi-ring events and ~100 MeV visible energy threshold by peak counting of PMTSUM signal. * Reader may not understand why the peak counting causes the inefficiency. A-28) We modified. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Q-29) page 7, 1st paragraph, 5th line during our analysis period -> during the analysis period A-29) We corrected. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The pi0 paper committee would like to thank you for sending your comments.