From mont@d0mino.fnal.gov Wed May 23 08:12:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: from d0mino.fnal.gov (d0mino.fnal.gov [131.225.224.45]) by phyast.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4NDCV729092 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:12:31 -0500 Received: from localhost (mont@localhost) by d0mino.fnal.gov (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA49339; Wed, 23 May 2001 08:12:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200105231312.IAA49339@d0mino.fnal.gov> X-Authentication-Warning: d0mino.fnal.gov: mont@localhost didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Mike Strauss cc: qianj@umich.edu, mont@fnal.gov, daniel@fnal.gov, ferbel@pas.rochester.edu, chopra@fnal.gov, dhiman@fnal.gov, jkrane@fnal.gov, marek@d0mino.fnal.gov, yasuda@fnal.gov Subject: Re: 630/1800 Photon Paper - Version 0.3 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 May 2001 14:53:04 CDT." <200105221953.f4MJr4g06150@particle.nhn.ou.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:12:30 CDT From: Hugh Montgomery Content-Length: 2407 Status: RO Mike, Thanks for your note. You can take these few comments now or wait until you post for the collaboration... ( by the way, did this go through style review yet??) Anyway: o since you don't habve a PRL format version, I have no idea how long this is, but 5 figures may be a stretch for PRL?? o in the last sentence of the abstract and of the paper, I would prefer the order of the sentences turned around.. its a matter of giving the data preeminence and letting the theory agree or not .. .. if you leave it as is then in the abstract, I would change ".. yield satisfactory..." to ".. show satisfactory.." o page 7, para 5, "represent" doesn't seem correct somehow?? o page 7, para 5, I would move ref 7 to follow "luminosity" rather than "Tevatron"... since you have reference 6 in mid-sentence Tom cannot tell me that it must come at the end. o page 7, para 5, change ".., and a two forward .." to ".., and two forward .." o page 8, para 2, change ".. beam pipe which detect .." to ".. beam pipe, which detect .." o page 9, para 3, change "A [9] Monte Carlo, overlaid .." to "A Monte Carlo[9], overlaid .." o page 10, para 2, change " Identical selecttion criteria that determines photon .." to " Identical selecttion criteria that determine photon .." Regards, Mont > EB128 (and others), > > I have completed a new version of the photon PRL. It can be found > from my photon home page: > > http://www.nhn.ou.edu/%7Estrauss/photon.html > > or directly viewed at > > http://www.nhn.ou.edu/%7Estrauss/prl_v0_3.ps > > The new version incorporates comments from John Krane, Mont, Marek, > and Tom Ferbel. I have also included the latest theory, CTEQ5M, for > both the 630 and 1800 results. CTEQ5M had a higher cross section > than CTEQ4M, so my chi^2 values have decreased slightly. There are > no major modifications in this version. > > I would appreciate comments asap so we can release this to the > collaboration. In addition, we have still not officially approved > the D0 note. That should be formally done so I can release it. > The note (as last modified on March 22) which I would like approved > is at > > http://www.nhn.ou.edu/%7Estrauss/ratio_note_v0_5.ps > > Please get comments to me soon. Thank you. > > -Mike ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From strauss@phyast.nhn.ou.edu Wed May 23 09:35:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: from particle.nhn.ou.edu (particle.nhn.ou.edu [129.15.30.205]) by phyast.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4NEYD725294; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:34:13 -0500 Received: by particle.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NEYC806655; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:34:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:34:12 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Strauss Message-Id: <200105231434.f4NEYC806655@particle.nhn.ou.edu> To: strauss@mail.nhn.ou.edu, mont@d0mino.fnal.gov Subject: Re: 630/1800 Photon Paper - Version 0.3 Cc: qianj@umich.edu, daniel@fnal.gov, ferbel@pas.rochester.edu, chopra@fnal.gov, dhiman@fnal.gov, jkrane@fnal.gov, marek@d0mino.fnal.gov, yasuda@fnal.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: 7LNBje6HosLEERfB5rDeWA== Content-Length: 3096 Status: RO EB128 and others, Here are some new comments from Mont (5/23/01) on the 630/1800 photon ratio PRL (Version 0.3) and my responses. I also forgot to mention in my last note that I have changed the tense of this version (0.3) to use the present tense. My previous versions (0.2 and 0.2) mixed past and present. Tom and John have both pointed out that I have a tendency to do that. > Thanks for your note. You can take these few comments now or wait until > you post for the collaboration... ( by the way, did this go through style > review yet??) This hasn't gone through the style review. I thought that would happen after being approved by the EB. Am I correct in that assumption? > Anyway: > > o since you don't have a PRL format version, I have no idea how long this > is, but 5 figures may be a stretch for PRL?? You can see a PRL format version from my photon home page, http://www.nhn.ou.edu/~strauss/photon.html Just click on the link to "Version 0.3 - Two Column Format". The paper might be a little long (half a column?). John suggested dropping some of the description of the analysis that is the same as the 1800 paper and referencing the 1800 paper. I would appreciate any suggestions on what could/should be dropped in this paper. If I drop a figure, which one? What text could be dropped? > > o in the last sentence of the abstract and of the paper, I would prefer > the order of the sentences turned around.. its a matter of giving the > data preeminence and letting the theory agree or not .. > > .. if you leave it as is then in the abstract, I would change > ".. yield satisfactory..." to ".. show satisfactory.." Changed the order, and changed "yield" to "show" > o page 7, para 5, "represent" doesn't seem correct somehow?? Changed to "The cross section measurment at 630 GeV uses a sample of 520 nb$^{-1}$ of data recorded in 1995~\cite{lum} with the \DO detector at the Fermilab Tevatron~\cite{D0}." > o page 7, para 5, I would move ref 7 to follow "luminosity" rather than > "Tevatron"... since you have reference 6 in mid-sentence Tom cannot tell > me that it must come at the end. That change to midsentence was put in after Tom saw the first draft. It was John's suggestion. Because the sentence has changed, I have put the references as shown above. Tom? > o page 7, para 5, change ".., and a two forward .." > to ".., and two forward .." Done. Missed that typo. > o page 8, para 2, change ".. beam pipe which detect .." > to ".. beam pipe, which detect .." Done. > o page 9, para 3, change "A [9] Monte Carlo, overlaid .." > to "A Monte Carlo[9], overlaid .." Done. > o page 10, para 2, > change " Identical selecttion criteria that determines photon .." > to " Identical selecttion criteria that determine photon .." > Changed to " Identical selection criteria that determine photon .." Keep the comments coming. I want this paper published before the first Run 2 paper. -Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From strauss@phyast.nhn.ou.edu Wed May 23 09:46:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: from particle.nhn.ou.edu (particle.nhn.ou.edu [129.15.30.205]) by phyast.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4NEkx717684; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:46:59 -0500 Received: by particle.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4NEkwD06669; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:46:58 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:46:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Strauss Message-Id: <200105231446.f4NEkwD06669@particle.nhn.ou.edu> To: marek@d0mino.fnal.gov Subject: Figure 3 Cc: qianj@umich.edu, mont@d0mino.fnal.gov, daniel@fnal.gov, ferbel@pas.rochester.edu, chopra@fnal.gov, dhiman@fnal.gov, jkrane@fnal.gov, yasuda@fnal.gov, strauss@mail.nhn.ou.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: VffEVlr1ebA1DC5Cbq04bg== Content-Length: 127 Status: RO I noticed that Figure 3 states the theory is CTEQ4M. That should be CTEQ5M, and I will change it in future versions. -Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From marek@d0mino.fnal.gov Mon May 28 16:00:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: from d0mino.fnal.gov (d0mino.fnal.gov [131.225.224.45]) by phyast.nhn.ou.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4SL0De04008 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:00:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (marek@localhost) by d0mino.fnal.gov (SGI-8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA97903; Mon, 28 May 2001 16:00:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200105282100.QAA97903@d0mino.fnal.gov> X-Authentication-Warning: d0mino.fnal.gov: marek@localhost didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: strauss@mail.nhn.ou.edu cc: Marek Zielinski , chopra@fnal.gov, dhiman@fnal.gov, jkrane@fnal.gov, yasuda@fnal.gov, strauss@mail.nhn.ou.edu, qianj@umich.edu, "V. Daniel Elvira" Subject: some more comments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 16:00:12 CDT From: Marek Zielinski Content-Length: 1222 Status: RO Hi Mike, I looked at the new draft (PRL style, dated 22 May) and I think it reads very nicely now. I still have a few comments: - there is a number of words split by Latex between lines with only one letter in one of the lines. You can try adding the following commands\ at the beginning of the document to try avoid this: \lefthyphenmin=2 \righthyphenmin=3 - your reply to previous comments did not tell me if your Pythia MC had the underlying event switched off... (we are adding data "random trigger" events "to model ... underlying event...", p.5, left col, par 2) - p.6, left column: I still would prefer "probability that the theory is consistent with data" right column, par 1: missing two parentheses )) after you spell out the ratio of sigma_D's (can take out both outside parentheses (), since you have commas) - caption to Fig 5 has ") GeV" instead of " GeV)" in two places I think we are very close -- good job! BTW, based on the EB responses by last Friday your second note is approved. Can you update us on your plan for the EPS/LP paper, going to style committee, and finally releasing the PRL draft to the collaboration (timescales, any things missing, theory, etc)? Cheers, Marek