Dear Sasha, Thank you for the detailed comments. Here come our answers. Bye Peter >_______________________________________________________________________ > > Comments > >page 1, para 2: one can add another paper for charmonium: >"charmonium [14,15]" adding the paper on psi' > Done > >sect.2, para 2, line 5: "their position were" --> "their positions were" > Done >page 3, para 2: Strictly speaking, OTR pitches are 8.7 and 17.4 mm due >to hexagonal geometry. >I would propose to write "5 mm and 10 mm cell diameters". > Done >sect.3, end of para 1: "Therefore only about 10% of the events contain >more than one interaction". Assuming Poisson distribution with mean >0.17, one can get 1.3% of the events contain more than one interaction >(1-exp(-0.17)*(1+0.17)). Why there is such a large discrepancy? > See my answer to Alan. >Table 2: Cut on zeta(D0) for D*+ is not explained. >Why there are no cuts on d(D) for the cases of D+ and D*+ ? > Cut on zeta was introduced on p. 5. d(D) cut for D+: is not necessary since the product of mbp's and d are correlated; D*+: there it was applied but, unfortunately, not mentioned in the table - by mistake. Corrected. >sect.3.2, para 1: figure 2, figure 3, figure 4 --> figures 2-4 > See my answer to Alan. >page 8, para 2: Why background for D*+ was taken as a(q^1/2+bq^3/2)? >Were other functions tried? Is it known that background should go to >zero at q=0? (this is probably not very supported by the data, and >besides the background on the right of the peak seems to be smaller >than the average of the data points) > The background should go to zero as q goes to zero, since phase space goes to 0 as well. Within statistics (first bin = 3 entries) this is not in contradiction with the data. We use the same ansatz in Belle for, e.g., the mixing analyses. >page 8, para 3: PDG gives m = 1968.2 +- 1.4 MeV for D+s. Can you >calculate the deviation from our value more exactly? Probably it will >be less than two standard deviations. > It is 1.7 sigma. We changed the text to 'by less than two standard deviations'. >Figs.2-4: it would be good to put labels D0, D+, D+s, D*+ on the right >of plots. Otherwise it is hard to remember the channel. It would be >also good to give definition of q in the axis caption in Fig.4. > Done. >Fig.2a: Except not very good description of the background from >partially reconstructed charm decays, there is also a small bump in the >background at m=1.55 GeV. Is it physical one or some artifact of drawing? > It is due to smoothing of the MC histogram with finite statistics. >sect.4, last para: Reference [25] is not ordered. > Done >page 11, last para: table 6, table 7, table 8 --> tables 6-8 > See my answer to Alan. >Table 5: systematic uncertainty due to "event counting" can sound > a bit mysterious > We now use a somewhat different expression: 'uncertainty in the signal yields associated with the fitting procedure (event counting)'. We need a shorter name for the table, therefore we keep 'event counting'. If you have a better idea, you are most welcome. >Table 8: Ds --> D+s > "first column" should be "first row"? > It is not clear why there are D*+ > which are not present in D0 sample. > Done. At some point we transposed the table matrix, and forgot to account for it. Cuts for D* were optimized separately, and there the cuts on D0 were milder. >Fig.5: In the label for D+s put superscript "+" directly to the right of "D". > In the same plot put a data point for E769 result. > You give points for NA27 and NA16 results, but in the list of > references the publication of these experiments have no name > of these collaborations. Therefore I would propose to put > NA16 and NA27 instead of LEBC-EHS which tells nothing to the reader. > Done. There is no data point from E769, just confidence limits. Text '90% CL' will be added in the figure. >page 13, last para: Where PDG has the value (89.1+-4.1)% ? > Page 200, last paragraph. > The last sentence about correlations seems to describe > the value 87.4+-8.2+-12.6 mub, then it would be natural > to put it after the first sentence of the paragraph. > Done. >page 14, last para: If you fit and beta, you get chi2/ndf=0.82 > but if you fix beta to 6, you get chi2/ndf=0.81. > But then the first result is not a global minimum > of chi2/ndf! > This is a likelihood fit result which is not necessarily at the chi2 minimum. Chi2 is in this case only of informative nature. Note, however, that we have by mistake quoted the Neumann chi2 returned by paw, and not the more appropriate chi2 from the likelihood. > Should and beta be the same for all species of > D mesons including also the resonances? > What data and MC say? > Data have too low statistics to judge. MC gives very similar distributions. >page 15, end of first para: The part beginning with ", an extension of (11)" > is difficult to read after the previous part in brackets. > Since actually Eq.(2) was already discussed, I would > propose to remove this part. > I have rearranged this paragraph, so that it is - hopefully - clearer. >sect.5.3: You cite several times PDG [24], but I wasn't able to find > these numbers in PDG. Could you please tell where to look? > You refer to results of E769 and NA27 - can references and values > of the ratios be given to justify that the agreement is good? > Can definition of P(V) be given? > PDG: page 200. Both E769 and NA27 only reported cross section, which we than used to calculate the ratios; we will quote the references but will not give the values because we are not able to determine the errors on the ratios. P(V) is defined in the text, we will add the symbol there as well. >Fig.7: What does the solid line correspond to? > If the world average is P(V) = 0.59, why do you draw > the dotted line for P(V) = 0.6 ? > 0.6 is the value used by Lourenco, ref 1, for the prediction. >Sect.5.4: You compare your results for the asymmetries with E769 > but don't give their value. It would be good to give it. > Why the systematic uncertainty of the weighted average is > 0.01 - so small? > We now give their value. The quoted systematic uncertainty on the weighted average was only due to MC statistics, we had a discussion on how to handle the rest, but forgot to add it. Since there is probably no reason why the asymmetries should be the same for different species, it now seems to me a good idea to completely drop the weighted average. I have commented out the corresponding sentences. > Which version of Pythia do you use? There are papers cited > in [1] that tuning Pythia allows to achieve > a good description of asymmetries. > We are actually not sure how exactly quote the HERA-B version of PYTHIA. Our version is 5.7, and this we quote in the paper. We have to find a way to quote the specific set of parameters that was used in our case, and this has been high on our to-do-list. I plan to talk to Thomas Lohse about it. For the asymmetries, however, another, probably much better idea would be to compare the measured asymmetries to the values from the recent PYTHIA version which Lourenco is using. We will contact Lourenco. >page 17, last para: "ratio in two ways" - can you be more specific? > Done. >page 18, para 1: "are in good agreement with the predictions > derived from Pythia" - do you consider 1.5 standard > deviations in sect.5.4 as good agreement? > As it was already commented, the key is what > version of Pythia is used and how it is tuned, > but you mention only results 0.22-0.24 from Pythia. > Possibly we can write in Summary about good agreement > with other measurements. And possible add discussion > of Pythia results. > Indeed, the exact version of PYTHIA is the key issue. We will also change 'good agreement' to 'reasonable agreement' (the agreement might improve if we use the new Lourenco's values). >Put Acknowledgment section so that Collaboration could comment. > Will be done. >References: >You wrote that the paper is intended for EJP, and conforms in style to >the requirements of the journal. Could you please check whether it is >really so? I saw other style of References in the paper in this journal. >Also ways of writing references to figures "Fig." should be >in the same style. > This is what we get if we pick up the style and example file from the official EJP web pages. >[1] Lourenco has a special accept under "c", > Woehri is written with umlaut. > Done >[4,5] Specify NA16 and NA27 collaborations. > Done. >[23] Refer to the public version of the luminosity paper. > Done >HERA-B has published some preliminary results on open charm production >e.g. in EPJ C43 (2005) 179 and also some data given in Note added in proof >in [1]. Publishing of this paper should supersede all these preliminary >results and discussions. Therefore it seems to me that we should give the >final version of all the values mentioned in these publications. >Could you please check that this is done? >For example, Note added in proof in [1] mentions: "According to Pythia, version 6.326, the HERA-B xF window covers slightly different >fractions of full phase space for the leading and non-leading >D mesons, because they have different rapidity distributions: 49% for >the D+ and D0; 58% for the D- and D0bar". If this is HERA-B result, >then it would be nice to include it in the final publication. >If not, do we agree with these values? > Thank you for pointing out that we have to specify that this paper supersedes our previous preliminary results. The values of 49% and 58% are Lourenco's calculated values (PYTHIA), not experimental data. Our f_vis (55%+-5%) which is indeed a result based on measured differential cross-sections, and is in a good agreement with the average of the two values from Lourenco. >________________________________________________________________________ > > TeXnical Comments > >Title: move "in" to the beginning of the second line > >page 1, last line: "present work presents" --> "present work provides" > >sect.2, para 1: "e-p" --> "$e-p$" > >sect.2, para 2: 50x70 --> $50\times70$ > >sect.2, para 2: write mm, MeV, GeV, etc. in upright font, e.g. 10--15~mm > (the same in pages 6,7 and others) > put a space before unit, e.g. 500~$\mu$m > >page 3, end of para 1: put long dashes "-" --> "--" or "---" > paramatrized --> parametrized > >sect.4, eq.(1) put large square brackets \left[.....\right] > eq.(2) write e^-... as exponent: exp(-....) > >Table 7: labels D0, D+, D+s, D*+ would look better if centered in the > corresponding column > >page 13, last para: D-meson --> $D$-meson > (by the way, is dash necessary here?) > >page 14: write ndf in upright font. > >Sect 5.3: write Br (for Branching) in upright font. > >Sect.5.4, line 2: put a wide bar in $\widebar{D}^0$. PDG does it this way. > >Sect.5.4, line 2 from end: "i.e. " --> "i.e.\ " > All done.