--------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) A sentence in the 2nd paragraph, "A result of three flavor mixing for certain parameters is that electron neutrino appearance from a muon neutrino flux is predicted at the same...." is too complicated for me to understand. (If this is not true for other people, just neglect this mail.) MY) remove the sentence due to page limit --------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Personally I don't like the term "terrestrial muon neutrino" as in general the Earth's atmosphere is part of the Earth. Therefore atmospheric neutrinos are terrestrial. So I would prefer "accelerator produced" instead. MY) corrected. --------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) In two places, the term "muon neutrino to electron neutrino oscillation" is used. Probably it sounds and looks better to call it " oscillation from numu to nue". MY) corrected. --------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) Reference number [6] of CHOOZ experiment may better be put at the sentence on page 3. MY) remove CHOOZ from introduction to oscillation section. --------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) On page 4 and 7, the word "confirm" is used. To me it sounds starneg. Probably "The validity of the beam MC simulation is assessed..." or something like that seems better. MY) "confirm" --> "check" --------------------------------------------------------------------- (6) On page 4, in the last sentence, "Finally events which..." seems too long for the subject -> "Finally, events accompanied by..." is simpler. MY) modified to "Finally, events which are followed by a decay electron signal within 30~$\mu$sec time window are rejected. The small fraction of \nue interactions are also rejected by this cut when they are accompanied with decay electrons originating from pions in inelastic interactions." --------------------------------------------------------------------- (7) On page 5, "judged" -> "considered" sounds better. MY) changed to "While ring-counting algorithms evaluate this event as a single ring event" --------------------------------------------------------------------- (8) On page 5, space between "Reign and Sehgal" and [11] is needed. MY) corrected --------------------------------------------------------------------- (9) On page 5, DIS is not defined. MY) DIS --> "deep inelastic scattering" --------------------------------------------------------------------- (10) On page 7, In the sentence "Systematic errors from..." a comma is needed : "...atmospheric neutrino events, and are..." MY) divided into 2 sentences --------------------------------------------------------------------- (11)On page 8," is treated as constant"->" is treated as a constant" MY) corrected --------------------------------------------------------------------- (12) Throughout the paper, the word "oscillation" is used a lot, referring to various different flavor combinations... although it's usually possible to figure out from context whether it means nu_mu -> nu_e or nu_mu -> nu_tau or whatever, in many places it would make for much easier reading to label it explicitly wherever possible, e.g. MY) add "nu_mu->nu_x" in introduction and conclusion section ------------------------------------------------------------ (13) * in Table 1 column, instead of "osc'd nu_e MC" write "nu_e from nu_mu->nu_e osc'n" MY) changed to "nu_e from nu_mu osc" ------------------------------------------------------------ (14) * p. 8 "the contribution of the oscillation effect to the total number of background" -> "the contribution of the nu_e-> nu_x oscillation effect to the total number of background" MY) modified ------------------------------------------------------------ (15) p. 3 parag 1 "indications of a neutrino oscillation" -> "indications of neutrino oscillation" MY) corrected "consistent with the atmospheric neutrinos" -> "consistent with atmospheric neutrino oscillation" MY) modified ------------------------------------------------------------ (16) p. 3 parag 2 "However no evidence was found." -> "However no evidence was found for disappearance of nuebar" MY) removed ------------------------------------------------------------ (17) p. 4 parag 2 Oxygen should not be capitalized MY) corrected "measurement of nue fraction" -> "measurement of the nue fraction" MY) corrected ------------------------------------------------------------ (18) p. 4 parag 3 "Negative value of the PID parameters" -> "Negative values of the PID parameters" MY) modified ------------------------------------------------------------ (19) "Finally events which are accompanied by a decay electron signal are rejected" Could you provide a few more details (with a ref, perhaps) as to what constitutes a decay electron signal? In the absence of any description, in Table 1, it seems a bit surprising that 2 nue events have decay electrons (going from 18 to 16 in the last two rows of the last column). MY) The half of the remained events at this stage in beam nu_e MC is induced by inelastic scattering. About 30% of such events from inelastic interactions are rejected due to following electrons from muon decays originating from invisible pions. modified to "Finally, events which are followed by a decay electron signal within 30~$\mu$sec time window are rejected. The small fraction of \nue interactions are also rejected by this cut when they are accompanied with decay electrons originating from pions in inelastic interactions." ------------------------------------------------------------ (20) p. 5 Fig 1 caption It might be just my printer, but the "shaded histogram" doesn't look shaded in my version... seems like an open solid-line histo. MY) fixed figure and caption ------------------------------------------------------------ (21) p. 5 parag 2 "This event is judged to be a single-ring e-like event. However, if the remaining activity out of the ring is assumed to form an additional ring, the invariant mass of these two rings is consistent with the pi0 mass" I understand what you mean, but I think a non-expert will be mystified by "remaining activity out of the ring". Also "judged" is unclear -- does this means human or algorithm (or both)? MY) by algorithm. What about something like: "The ring-counting algorithms evaluate this event as a single ring event; however, under the assumption of two rings, the invariant mass of the two best fit rings is consistent with the pi0 mass." MY) modified to "While ring-counting algorithms evaluate this event as a single-ring event, under a careful manual examination it reveals that the remaining PMT hits out of the reconstructed ring form an additional ring, and the invariant mass of these two rings is found to be consistent with the $\pi^0$ mass." ------------------------------------------------------------ (22) p. 6 Typo "third colums" -> "third columns" MY) corrected ------------------------------------------------------------ (23) p. 7 parag 2 "To cover whole error region without changing the central value, 30% is assigned for the error on the NC/CC-QE cross-section ratio." I'm confused by this statement... central value of what? Where does this show up in Table II? MY) modified to "To cover the allowed range, from 0.92 to 1.27, without changing the NC cross-section model in our MC, an uncertainty of 30\% is assigned on the NC/CC-QE ratio.". The systematic errors on the number of electron candidate events from the uncertainty in NC/CC-QE are shown in the first item "NC cross-section" in Table II. ------------------------------------------------------------ (24) p. 7 parag 3 "obtain total systematic error" -> "obtain the total systematic error" MY) corrected ------------------------------------------------------------ (25) p. 8 parag 1 "kilo meters" -> "kilometers" MY) corrected ------------------------------------------------------------ (26) Discussion of the expectation: a few things are not quite clear. N_numu^BG is labeled "number of electron events induced by numu" but I think you really mean before-oscillation-numu, right? Most of these bg events are NC, so many of them might actually be nutaus which have oscillated from numus. MY) Yes, you are right. I assume you have taken this into account, i.e. estimated explicitly (small) numu-CC-induced bg from oscillated-away-numus, and then separately estimated bg from NC, which doesn't care about the oscillation. This is suggested by the discussion after eqn 3 but not really made clear. MY) modified to "$N^{BG}_{\nu_\mu}$ is that induced by both CC and NC interactions of $\nu_\mu$ and NC interactions of \nue and \nutau from oscillations", and added explanations about the oscillation effect on background in selection section. ------------------------------------------------------------ (27) better to refer to Palo Verde. MY) removed the description about all the reactor experiments from introduction. CHOOZ was compared with our results in oscillation section. ------------------------------------------------------------ (28) add "the" for "1KT", "FGD", "PSH", "MRD" MY) we consider to use these abbreviation(acronym?) without an article ------------------------------------------------------------ (29) need to explain about effective mixing angle and mass squared difference. MY) Add the reference to some papers about 3-flavor mixing. ------------------------------------------------------------ (30) In Fig.2, need to explain why CHOOZ's limit stops at sin^2(2thme)=0.5 MY) add "The limit on \sstt13 by CHOOZ is converted with $\ssttme = \frac{1}{2} \sstt13$." in the text. ------------------------------------------------------------ (31) need quantitative description about the number of electron events ogrinating from nu_mu in the nu_mu -> nu_tau case. Also need to explain N_{BG}^{nu_mu} is almost constant even in the oscillation case in the earlier in the text. MY) add the descriptions in background section. section. ------------------------------------------------------------ (32) p.5 "except for the normalization of NC" with respect to what? MY) modified to "except for the normalization of NC with respect to CC-QE cross-section." ------------------------------------------------------------ (33) In Table II, no definition of \epsilon_{1KT} and \epsilon_{SK}. MY) add explanation about these in the text. ------------------------------------------------------------ (34) need to explain "ordering principle" MY) just say "The confidence interval of \ssttmue{} is calculated using the method suggested in Ref.~\cite{Feldman:1998qc}." ------------------------------------------------------------ (35) MY) Thanks Chang Kee for the other corrections and comments. ------------------------------------------------------------