From slee@fnal.gov Thu Jul 10 21:29:35 2003
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:42:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Sung-Won Lee 
To: burkett@fnal.gov, smaria@fnal.gov, williams@williams.hep.upenn.edu,
     castro@fnal.gov, slaughter@fnal.gov
Cc: Texas A&M/CDF Team -- David Toback ,
     Matt Cervantes , Maxim Goncharov ,
     Peter McIntyre ,
     Peter Wagner , Sungwon Lee ,
     Teruki Kamon ,
     Vadim Khotilovich ,
     Vyacheslav Krutelyov 
Subject: Texas A&M comments on KK Graviton emission draft paper


  Dear Kevin, Maria and GPs,
 
We, Texas A&M group, read the paper entitled "Search for Kaluza-Klein
Graviton Emission in pbarp Collisions at sqrt{s}=1.8 TeV" (CDF 6501).
 
At first we congratulate your work as seen in this nice paper. The 
physics result is very clear and it is a well written paper. 
We support the publication to PRL.

Response
Thanks very much for your good words 

We have some stylistic/physics comments, which are listed below.

Sincerely,
Sungwon Lee, Slava Krutelyov,
Teruki Kamon, Dave Toback, Peter McIntyre,
Maxi Goncharov, Vadim Khotilovich, Peter Wagner, Matt Cervantes




      == Texas A&M comments on KK Graviton emission draft paper ==

==========================================================================
                             General comments
==========================================================================

The introduction is quite long. We suggest that it would be good to have
a more discussion of the analysis and interpretation of the results.

In general it would be better to have a bit more discussion on the effect 
of the K-factor. From  hep-ph/0101316 it looks like the K=1.  is at least 
a lower bound for the K factor (well this work was for ATLAS, but was
published 2 years ago, we would think that something can be done to get 
the corresponding numbers for the Tevatron.)


Response
The paper you refer to has a NLO calculation for resonant production.
No NLO calculation has been done for our case. As a matter of fact it is 
very difficult.  We quote results for K=1.3 in order to compare with D0 
directly. 1.3 is reasonable becasue it is similar to a Z+jets K-factor.

Just curious, why are the D0 numbers lower, is that due to the ~7% lower
int. luminocity, or is it mostly due to  the looser cuts we use thus 
giving us more statistical power (note that D0 quote the signal 
acceptance between 5% and 8% whereas this work quotes 3.6 to 5.3%, 
i.e. a smaller number)?


Response
Yes! The statistical power is most important.  Also, they have huge error 
on their QCD+cosmic calcualtion


==========================================================================
                           Specific comments  
==========================================================================

========
Abstract
========
"At 95% C.L " -> put a period after L. (to be "C.L.")

Response
OK.  Fixed.

======
page.1
======

1st para: We think that the part (1st sentence) about the gravity and
electromagnetism in 4+1 is more like a historical artifact here and is  
less important then the KK mode definition, well it can be used to 
indicate that for the KK modes that's the same U(1) symmetry. 
Generally it's  difficult to understand...

Response
It is admittedly brief.  We have given it another try.


2nd para, 5th line: "to be 'large' circles (a n-torus) of common
circumference R" would read better if stated as "to be 'large' 
circles of common circumference R (a n-torus)"

Response
OK.  Fixed.


======
page.2
======

1st para, 2nd line: 
"each quanta.." shouldn't that be a single "each quantum.."

Response
OK.  Fixed.


1st para, 3rd line: 
space between verctor and 2

Response
OK.  Fixed.


2nd param last line: 
"1mm, and 10 fermi" better read "1mm and 1fm" units and no comma 
in front of and)

Response
OK.  Fixed.


3rd para 2nd line: "..of M_Pl^{-1}. However.."  
=> "Pl" in italic to be consistent with others in the text.

Response
OK.  Fixed.

======
page.3
======
1st line: "..is missing transverse energy from the.."
-> write here "..is missing transverse energy (E\!\!\!\!/_T) from the.." 
   and throughout the paper use "E\!\!\!\!/_T". 
-> you, then, don't need to defind MET in line 4.

Response
OK.  Fixed.

======	   
page.4
======

2nd para 4th line: "By accepting events.. we can reliably normalize.." 
-> We think that this indicated the previous study (by Maria) on the QCD 
jets performed for SUSY gluinos/squarks search in MET+Jets channel. The 
readers may not be clear by the sentense. We suggest the authors to add 
references  (such as Maria's Ph.D. thesis or SUSY PRL). 

Response
OK.  We have tried to expand a bit on this.

2nd para 6th line: 
as for sigma(NLO)/sigma(LO) -> no definition for NLO and LO!!

Response
OK.  Fixed.


3rd para 6th line: 
you used \delta\phi in the text, but you used \Delta\phi in the fig. 
		    
Response
OK.  Fixed.

4th para 3the line: 
space between < and 0.9 
text: you say "f_em \lt 0.9", table: you say "f_em \le 0.9" 
define the jet electromagnetic fraction;  -> f{em}=E_em/E_em+E+had?     

Response
OK.  Fixed.

======		    
page.5
======

1st pata 1st-2nd lines: 
draw any conclusion from Figs. eg) good agreement between data and 
Standard Model?

Response
OK.  Fixed.

			
2nd para 5th line: "..due to gluon radiation.."
-> Presumably you are talking about ISR/FSR. I suggest ISR/FSR instead of 
gluon radiation. ie. initial and final state gluon radiation!! Because we 
have initial state soft gluon radiation due to effective parton kT in the 
proton. (kT kick).  This's a kind of gluon radiation as well.

Response
OK.  Fixed.
			     
2nd para 6th line: ...parton density functions. 
-> what fraction?, any number?

Response
OK.  Fixed.



2nd para: 
What's the theoretical uncertainty? 
What's the systematic uncertainties on the SM backgrounds? 

Response
The significant backgrounds are normalized to the data.  The uncertainties 
come mostly from the luminosity uncertainty. (see Andrea Castro's comments also); 
QCD has also the systematic from resolution, but QCD itself is small.
We have expanded the discussion of the uncertainties in the latest draft. 
As for the theory, that uncertainty goes into the uncertainty from Q^2. 
We are working with s\hat < M_D so we don't have significant number of 
events above M_D.  We have added a couple sentences to cover this. 


=======
table.1
=======

- space between ...0.7, and E_T..

 Response
 OK.  Fixed.

=======
Fig.1
=======

- duplicate the labels; remove "Upper ... Lower: gg->gG" in the caption. 
 Response
 OK.  Fixed



=======
Fig.2
=======

- bump in 4th bin, why? - statistical fluctuation?

Response
Yes, we assume so. 

- can't see y-axis (in right-hand side) due to the yellow band.
Response
OK.  Fixed.

- Predicted -> Standard Model (it's a suggestion)

Response
OK.  Fixed.



=======
Fig.3
=======

- hard to see both data and axis due to dark hatch. 
Response
OK.  Fixed.


- remove x-axis error bar for data or do something more clearly. 
Response
OK.  Fixed


- need more space between x-axis and axis label. 
Response
OK.  Fixed.


- caption: \delta \phi --> \Delta \phi (to be consistent with the axis
           label) Thus, also on Page.4 (line 16), 
	   \delta \phi --> \Delta \phi 
- Predicted -> Standard Model (it's a suggestion)

Response
OK.  Both done.


=======
Fig.4
=======
 
- need more space between x-axis and axis label.
- bigger marker size 
- use "TIC", you used a TIC in Fig.2 and 3 (it's a suggestion) 

Response
OK.  All fixed.

=========
Reference
=========

Ref.  2: "." (period) after "(1998)"
Ref. 14: Phys. Rev.D64 032002 (2001) --> Phys. Rev. \bf{D}64, 032002 
(2001)
Ref. 16: "," (comma) between "89" and "281801"
Response
OK.  Fixed



---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Dr. Sung Won, Lee - Texas A&M University
Address:: Texas A&M/CDF, MS318, Fermilab, PO Box 500, Batavia,IL 60510 
e-mail :: slee@fnal.gov Phone :: 630-840-6647 Fax :: 630-840-2968
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thenks very much for your comments.