Hi Urs et al,
thanks for the detailed explanations. Please find appended a suggestion
to clarify the open point.
Cheers, Eckhard
>
>> p1, =A73: I do not understand the sentence on the MC: "The two com=
> ponents
>> are combined...and also that the integral distribution function is
>> consistent." First the "integral distribution function" is not def=
> ined
>> and even if it were I do not understand how the sentence explains
>> anything. I feel that the sentence should either be dropped altoge=
> ther
>> or be explained in more detail.
>
> Changed to "cumulative distribution function". The only thing that is
> left out is that the resonances at low mX make the description a bit
> shaky at low masses. Can you please explain in more detail why this
> does not explain "anything"?=20
>
The part of the sentence concerning the cumulative part is now clear. I
am still a bit concerned by the word "combined". Naively I would expect
that one takes a fraction of one distribution and the complement from
the other which I don't think is what you did. A suggestion for minimum
change: "The two components are combined differentially so that..."
Would that make sense?
>
>> p1, =A74: There has to be a reference for the Breco - else it reads
>> like
>> black magic.
>
> There is no reference. This is the first paper using the
> semi-exclusive BRECO.
Hm, that does not solve the problem. Will there be a paper eventually?
If yes you could have a forward reference...
|