MY>> p.3 MY>> just below equation (4) MY>> the axial vector mass -> add "M_A", although it is actually defined in the introduction? RIK>> Done. MY>> beginning of II.B MY>> "... especially single pion events from ..." MY>> Isn't it better to write an explicit formula here, nu + N -> mu + N' + pi, MY>> to clarify what we are talking about? RIK>> I am not sure it clarifies this. I put it in the way you have written it. RIK>> I often use nu + N -> mu + Delta -> mu + N' + pi When I write about this reaction. RIK>> but it gets messy because there are so many charge states and resonance states. MY>> three lines below it, MY>> "... used by the K2K and Super-Kamiokande ..." MY>> It is true that NEUT is used in both collaboration, but I believe what is more MY>> important is it is tested and verified with neutrino data in these experiments. RIK>> In this context I disagree. There is some discussion and verification of neut RIK>> in this paper itself, it is true that NEUT has evolved greatly in the last decade. RIK>> But NEUT (and NEUGEN and NUANCE and the others) are verified primarily for RIK>> oscillation physics, not for the interaction physics studies presented here, RIK>> And the verification is not particularly strong. RIK>> This statement is here to put NEUT in an experimental context, not to discuss RIK>> is validity in general. MY>> second paragraph of II.B MY>> "... less important for these beam energies, ..." MY>> It is not clear for me what are "these" energies. MY>> I believe what is relevant in this paper is K2K energy range, is it meant here? RIK>> Improved. MY>> III.A MY>> "The mu^+ are absorbed by approximately 100 meters of earth and the beam dump ..." MY>> It looks more natural for me if we write "the beam dump and approximately 100 meters of" RIK>> Fixed. MY>> "The contamination in this beam includes ...." MY>> These numbers are based on MC simulation and it needs to be stated. RIK>> Fixed. MY>> p.4, Fig.1 MY>> I prefer to emphasize SciFi in the figure, although it is minor thing.. RIK>> Added in the caption. MY>> p.4, left col. 11th line from the bottom MY>> "For this paper, I will ...." MY>> I was taught that we should never use "I" in a paper. MY>> So, we should use "we" or passive sentence here. RIK>> Oops. My mistake. Fixed. MY>> BTW, I feel a bit to use "spectrum fit" even it is defined as in the current draft. MY>> Can we actually avoid using this jargon in the paper and try to use more general term? MY>> Probably, "E_\nu spectrum measurement" or something like that would be better... MY>> p.5 MY>> III.C MY>> "The primary distinction between them is ..." MY>> Why do we mention the change in Super-K, which is not used in this paper at all? MY>> We can just mention the relevant difference in the near detector configuration. MY>> p.5, right col., 13th line MY>> "The MC simulation includes ..." MY>> The nuclear effect is already mentioned in section II.C (p.3). MY>> I feel more comfortable if all the necessary description is given in sec. MY>> II.C and not repeated here. RIK>> A difficult thing. The nuclear effects can be described earlier, but the RIK>> discussion with data must happen after the detector description. RIK>> I have improved the II.C description, but repeat some of the discussion RIK>> here so this section is somewhat self-contained and reads better. MY>> p.5, right col., 8th line from the bottom MY>> \theta_{2ndTrack} is not used in any other place, and needless to be defined. RIK>> I never use that notation again, so I have removed it completely. MY>> p.7 MY>> beginning of IV.A MY>> "The kinematics of the muon, the longest track in ...." MY>> The longest track in an event is not necessarily a muon, but a muon candidate. RIK>> Added candidate. MY>> around middle of left col. MY>> "... though the mean of the distribution is accurate to 1%." MY>> Does this mean the p_mu scale disscussed later? MY>> If so, it looks somewhat odd for me to give this precision here. RIK>> What I should say here is "precise" not "accurate", and the value should RIK>> be here so that this section is complete and self-contained. MY>> section IV.B MY>> In the second paragraph of this section, you mention "Four free parameters MY>> describe the relative flux ...", which is repeated in the left column of page 8. MY>> (likewise for other parameters.) I feel it a bit annoying. MY>> Because we have enough and good description of exact formula later, MY>> the second paragraph in this section may be significantly reduced to give MY>> an overview of the fit. RIK>> I have tried to rearrange these parts, as you suggest. MY>> In equation 8, you use "E_{rec}" which is inconsistent with symbol used MY>> in other places, "E_\nu^{rec}". RIK>> Fixed, though I think putting rec in the superscript for E, but subscript for Q RIK>> Looks a little odd. That is why I originally simplified it in these formulas. MY>> N_{QE} and N_{nonQE} in eq.8 is not defined. RIK>> Added. MY>> just below equation 9, MY>> The meaning of R is totally unclear just by this sentence. MY>> It may be clear after reading to near the end of this paper, page 12, MY>> but I believe we need more description what we are talking here. RIK>> I said a little bit more, and referred ahead to the full discussion. RIK>> Its too early to talk about the full effects in this section. MY>> p.8, right col., 4th line MY>> .... Monte Carlo "simulation" and already... RIK>> Fixed here and one other place. MY>> The description of \Phi(E) and flux(E) is scattered around and hard to MY>> understand for an average reader. Especially, the paragraph starting 5th line MY>> of right col., p.8 is confusing (at least for me) because I cannot figure out MY>> what is relation of the first and the second sentences. Also, flux(E) is not only MY>> based on the hadron production parameterization but full beam simulation, MY>> as written just before equation 9. MY>> I cannot understand what we want to say in the first half of this paragraph. RIK>> Changed. MY>> V.A MY>> This section should be in "Fit procedure" section, not in "Results and discussion". MY>> We explain two migration parameters which are mentioned in the second paragraph of IV.B. RIK>> Also made this move, and checked to make sure everything was discussed in the proper place. RIK>> This is a large structural change, but I agree, it is an improvement. MY>> p.9 MY>> V.B. MY>> I don't understand the 5th line, "($\chi2 = 109/101$ dof) respectively." RIK>> A typo -- this goes with the K2K-I and K2K-IIa separate fits, and is moved there. MY>> V.C. MY>> 7th line in this section, (and no coherent pion) MY>> is unnecessary because we already note we use zero CC coherent pion in this analysis. RIK>> Because this is a unique feature of the K2K analysis, it is worth mentioning again. MY>> What is the meaning of "(but not shown)", 2nd line from the bottom? RIK>> not shown as an additional error bar in the figure. Changed. MY>> Because this is a consistency check, we should add some conclusion in the first paragraph, MY>> to say the result is consistent with our default value. RIK>> Okay. Added. MY>> p.10 MY>> While we say results for each energy are consistent with combined result, MY>> all the separate energy fit give lower M_A than the combined fit. MY>> Is it possible? (Probably I have forgotten past discussion about it.) RIK>> The energy regions with the most significant data are between 1.0 and 2.0 GeV, RIK>> So they are the ones that affect the overall fit the most. This fit in particular RIK>> is quite difficult, because other parameters must be held fixed in an artificial way. MY>> p.11 MY>> left col., 2nd line MY>> Q2 -> Q2_{rec} RIK>> Fixed MY>> left col., 6th line MY>> "... to be more or less compressed." MY>> I would add "and affect the M_A measurement" or something like that. MY>> Although it is implicitly indicated in the current context, it is better to be clear. RIK>> Added MY>> right col., the first line of V.D.2. MY>> "A significant uncertainty arises because..." MY>> It is not clear for me what "significant uncertainty" we are talking here. MY>> Uncertainty of what? RIK>> in MA. Added. MY>> 4th line from the bottom, p.11 right col. MY>> "..., but a different analysis technique, ..." MY>> I don't know if this sentence has correct structure. RIK>> it is correct. MY>> p.14, conclusion MY>> Do we really want to "note that this analysis is very sensitive to the absolute MY>> muon momentum scale." in the conclusion? MY>> It may make more sense if we just say the momentum scale gives the largest MY>> contribution to the systematic uncertainty. RIK>> I think the stronger statement is okay. It was a bit of a suprise for us, RIK>> and will be relevant to future measurements, even the ones that get pmu RIK>> from curvature in a magnetic field.