Dear Colleagues, First I'd like to say that it's a great job and very nice to read. My major comment/worry about the paper is that it does not contain any 3 flavor analysis. I understand that this is a group policy to delay it to a separate paper? Then it should be noted somewhere that this paper is in preparation. Below is a list of my comments and suggested changes to specific statements. Regards, Danka -------------------------- p1. formula 1: a) It should be mentioned that it is valid for 2-flavor approximation. Maybe add a footnote explaining also that this is the approximation we're using throughout this paper. b) "mixing angle between the mass basis and the weak basis"..... should be changed to "rotation angle.... because bases do not mix, they can be rotated (I think). ------------------------------ p1. It should be defined somewhere in the Introduction what is SK-I used in the title. A natural place would be the end of the par. starting with Super-Kamiokande (also Super-K....) --------------------- p.2, col.1, l 9 bot ...flux calculated for specifically .... - cross out "for" Next statement: change to "According to the cosmic ray proton, helium and neutron..." It's difficult to understand the remaining of this sentence: "...the cosmic ray flux was near that of the solar minimum...... ..and was consistent with that of solar maximum..." You probably meant a nominal "solar minimum" and "solar maximum" flux used in the model by Honda et al.? ------------------------------- Fig.2 caption: It should be explained that those are "numu + numubar" fluxes. Also: I suspect they are vertical fluxes? -------------------------- Fig.3 caption: Is this flux ratio for fluxes integrated over angles? It should be added to the caption. -------------------------------- p.8, col.2 Later on in the text the histograms for oscillated samples are presented. It would make it more clear for a reader if at the end of the section IV devoted to MC there was an explanation that those samples were obtained by: a) weighting the events by formula 1 b) numu-->nutau transitions with best fit parameters obtained in sec. VI are used -------------------------- p.8, beginning of sec. V: Maybe here it would make sense to define SKI: until the detector upgrade in Jul 2001. It's never explained why just this date. -------------------------- p.10, Figs 17,18 and 19, 23: Why the best-fit histograms are so much below the data?? It does not look consistent with the fit in Fig34. -------------------------------------- p. 11, col.2, par.2: Description of Fig 24: "The disagreement in number between data and MC .... comes from the disappearance of muon-like events due to neutrino oscillation" But according to the caption the histograms are oscillated?? ------------------------------------ p.12,col.1,par.1: "The resulting momentum resolution......" I believe the numbers are for single rings; for multiple rings is much worse. It should be noted in the text. ------------------------------------------- p.12, col.2, 2nd par: "0.68%+-0.2%" change to "0.7%+-0.2%" ---------------------------------- p.13, caption of Table II: ....real vertexes... --> ...real vertices.... ... hits more than or equal to 10.... --> hits more than 9.... ------------------------------------ p.14, beginning of C.1 For consistency with A and B the info about live-time should go to D.2. --------------- p.16, caption of Fig.28: Shouldn't it be: "The number of downward events is normalized....." ------------------ p.17,col.1, l.6 bot ...and events with more than two...... --> more than one -------------------------------- p.18, Table IV Are the events with 30MeV30 MeV and I kind of remember that only E_vis>100 MeV were used for R measurement? ----------------------------- p.18, col.1, last par "flavor ratio is predicted with a 5% accuracy" however Table V says 2.7% and 2.2% ?? -------------------------- p.19, col.1, 1st par There is a discussion of a sample of E_vis>600 MeV I dont understand how this sample was used and what results were obtained ----------------------------- p.19, col.1, last par "While the measured rates ....for e-like events are consistent....'" The rates in Fig 34 do not look consistent w/out oscil. Maybe : "While the measured shape of zenith angle distribution ..........is consistent... ---------------------------- p.19, col.2, last par ...and the possibe sources... ---> and the possible remaining sources.... -------------------- p. 23, caption of Table VI: "Expected event rates based on different .....interaction models.." I can't see different int. models? --------------------- p.27, col.1,l.3 ...the most accurate detemination.... Doesn't the L/E paper give a better determination? **************************************************************8 On Sun, 30 May 2004, Masaki Ishitsuka wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The 1st draft for the SK-I atmospheric neutrino full paper is > ready for the internal review. It is posted at; > http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~atmpd/sk1_fullpaper/ > (Please see the "1st draft", not the "0th draft" or "0.5th draft".) > > For the details about the systematic errors listed in the paper, > you can check by summary ppt file (ver.1.52) at the same page. > > Please send your comments to us, sk_atmpd@suketto.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp > by June 20. > > Best regards, > M.Ishitsuka for atmpd > -- *********************************************************************** Dr hab. Danuta Kielczewska http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~danka/ Professor of Warsaw University or http://www.ps.uci.edu/~danka Institute of Experimental Physics tel. (+48 22) 553-2254 ul. Hoza 69, 00-681 Warszawa, Poland fax (+48 22) 629-4309