The circulated draft is http://neutrino.kek.jp/internal/papers/nue03/nue.031209.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) When introducing overview of K2K experiments, around bottom of page 3, the paper S.H.Ahn et al.,Phys. Lett. B511 (2001) 178-184. is indispensable. A) We included. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Please include my name since I am qualified author. A) We will inquire each PI a list of qualified authors when the 2nd draft will be circulated. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) page 5, 2nd paragraph: "One event is selected...however...." I guess you want to note the reader that we have capability to reject more background in the future study, but current presentation may give wrong impression that the study is not complete. I think we need better description in this part. *) Similar comment as 7) and 9). A)We modified expression. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) In page 10, 5th line: "...excluding a parameter region of sin22\theta_{\mu e}<0.12 at..." should be "....sin22\theta_{\mu e}>0.12..." A) We changed accordingly. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) All the sentences are written in the present tence. But some of them seem to be unclear. For example, there written, The NC pi0 production is measured by the 1KT... From this sentence, I(reader) can't know if the production was really measured or not. A) We looked around recent papers and there seems to be two style of papers, ie, one which contain many past tence and the other is almost completely in present tence such as BaBar's latest papers. So we think it's OK with the present style of our paper. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) I can't understand a sentence " A direct result of three flavor mixing is that for certain.... using the atmospheric neutrinos." A) We slightly improved the expression. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) It seems not to be necessary to have a sentence, "Altough a tighter cut can be develope to rejects more pi0.... because the systemactic uncertainty of the cut is under estimation." If I were an outside reader, I would think that why don't you estimated it before publication. *) Similar comment as 3) and 9). A) We modified the expression. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8)3 flavor oscillation analysis should be done with three parameters; Dm2_23, theta_13 and theta_23. Contour in the three dimensional space should be discussed. A) We do not think we have to do 3 flavor oscillation analysis. This kind of policy of this paper has been discussed in the last collaboration meeting and conveners meeting. The collaboration agreed on the present direction. This is the first results on nue search in a long baseline experiment. Therefore we think that first results we should present is the one which has minimum dependence on external input, such as other experiment or phenomenological assumption. In addition, we think that the three flavor is the different analysis, and it is not the purpose of this paper. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9)It is written that "Although a tighter cut can be developed to rejects more pi0 background, it is not applied in the present analysis because the systematic uncertainty of the cut is under estimation." If the estimation is easy, it should be done. If it is very difficult and need much time, you must explain present status and estimation, and you must convince collaborators that your decision is reasonable. We need some internal document to describe the status of pi0 cut. *) Similar comment as 3) and 7). A) We modified the expression. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) The labels "(a)" and "(b)" should be written in Fig.1. A) We added. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) In page 9, why the limits on sin22q at large dm2 and dm2=6e-3 are same values, although they do not seem to be same in Fig.2? To me, it seems that sin22q = 0.1 at dm2 = 6e-3. A) We corrected this typo. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) In abstract and page 9, I think The most sensitive search is done for dm2=6e-3 eV2 setting a limit of sin22q > 0.12 ~~~ I think "sin22q < 0.12" is correct.... A) We corrected. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) In page 10, line 5: ... excluding a parameter region of sin22q < 0.12 ~~~ Here, I think "sin22q > 0.12" is correct. A) We corrected. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 14) It is just confirmation. There appear different values of nu_e contamination, 0.9% on page 4 and 1.3% on page 7. I think these numbers correspond to the values at SK and ND, respectively. Are different Far/Near ratios used for nu_mu and nu_e? A) Yes. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15) In page 5. About the interaction model in MC simulation. In nu_mu disappearance analysis, we used Marteau model instead of Rein&Sehgal for coherent pion production, and Bodek&Yang instead of GRV94 for DIS. Is the descriptions in nu_e paper correct? A) We modified to more precise expression.