Disposition of comments on PRL version 1, May 10, 1997.

Mark Strovink's handwritten comments
------------------------------------
 
I adopted essentially all of his comments of a word-smithing and organizational
nature.  I will describe only those suggestions which affected the physics
information  content.  

In addition to grammatical changes, Mark suggested removing "with the R parity
conservation" from the sentence  "We search for neutralino and chargino pair
productions in p pbar collisions at Tevatron with with the R parity
conservation."  I did so because it was akward there, but I felt that it was
required, so I incorporated it into paragraph 3.

Mark suggested removing "The jets in the trigger included non-leading
electromagnetic clusters  in an event" from the trigger description.  I did not
remove it because it seemed useful to me. 

Mark suggested removing "Genuine or misidentified diphoton events without 
genuine \met\ would be misidentified as \ggmet\ events if the \met's were 
significantly mismeasured."  Done (it seemed unnecessary and redundant).

Mark suggested giving the number of gamma-gamma events, so I took the number
from the D0 note, but could Jianming check that this is the correct number:
      229 events passed the photon requirements; these
      are called $\gamma\gamma$ events.

Mark asked if a Jacobian zero accounted for the peak in Fig. 1, but Jianming
responded that the peak is an artifact due to the trigger threshold on a sharply
decreasing spectrum.

Mark suggested changing PYTHIA and SPYTHIA fonts to e.g. {\sc spythia}.  They
were {\footnotesize spythia}.  I changed them to \sc, but am a bit uneasy
because I had to change them in \newcommand lines:
%\newcommand{\spythia}{{\footnotesize SPYTHIA}}
\newcommand{\spythia}{{\sc SPYTHIA}}
so I wonder if I am violating some D0 standard choice.  The result is larger
caps, which looks better in my opinion.

The remaining suggestions from Mark have not been dealt with.  They should 
be handled soon or discussed at the next EB meeting:

Figs. 2 and 3 should be exactly the same format.

Include a plot expressing cross section limits vs $m_{\chi_2} + m_{\chi_1}$ and
$m_{\chi_2} - m_{\chi_1}$.

Must give all numbers in Womersley PRL.

Mark Strovink's email comments (Responses are preceded by >>>>)
------------------------------

From:	ST%"HEURING@d0tng.fnal.gov" 26-MAR-1997 08:02:26.03
To:	ST%"qianj@UMICH.EDU", ST%"chopra@fnald0.fnal.gov",
        ST%"landsberg@fnald0.fnal.gov", ST%"hadley@umdhep.UMD.EDU",
        ST%"trippe@lbl.gov", ST%"fisyak@ucdhee.ucdavis.edu"
Subj:	comments on PRL from Physics Coordinator

    Here are some comments from Mark Strovink on the PRL.  If anyone has
reactions or suggestions, please let me know.  I hope everyone is spending all
their spare time reading the draft!  Don't forget to send a copy of any
comments to me for posterity.

                                   Terry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded message:
> From "CSA6::STROVINK"@D0GS01.FNAL.GOV Thu Mar 20 16:28:32 1997
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:28:30 -0600 (CST)
> To: eno@nscpmail.physics.umd.edu, hobbs@d0sgi4.fnal.gov
> X-Vmsmail-Cc: STROVINK
> Subject: Conversation with Jianming
> 
>                                     50-341 LBL, Berkeley CA 94720, 20-MAR-1997
> 
> Sarah and John,
> 
> I read Jianming's PRL version 0 on the plane (my red pen literally ran out of
> ink), and this afternoon had a nice chat with him.  Here's what I learned:
> 
> 1.  Jianming's been getting a lot of feedback (a small part of it from me) to 
>     the effect that the content could profitably be extended to include more
>     model-independent limits.  Perhaps a contour plot showing cross section
>     limits (1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 etc. of some unit) as a function of the
>     difference between the two gaugino masses on one axis and their average on
>     the other?
>>>>Work is in progress.
>
> 2.  Jianming would not object to the formation of a small drafting committee
>     for this Letter.  Perhaps it could include a mild-mannered (senior?) type
>     who would be willing quietly to do a lot of outlining, drafting, and
>     editing, maybe someone with a lot of experience writing PRL's.  This would
>     free up Jianming to work on extending the results (and working on
>     other hot analyses).  (If this is done, it would be fairer to Susan
>     Blessing to bring her in after this committee has done some work.
>     Nevertheless, her involvement will be crucial for this Letter.)
>>>>Work is in progress.
> 
> Here are some of my own observations:
> 
>  -  The paper is already quite a bit shorter than is allowed.  Once the
>     language is tightened up, it will be much shorter still.  This creates a 
>     marvelous opportunity for substantially beefing up its content.
>>>>With all comments and suggestions now included, the length is slightly 
>>>>increased.  Further efforts will be made to shorten and restructure.
> 
>  -  D0 will need to formulate a strategy for getting this PRL published.  If
>     the paper is too narrowly focused and/or too similar to Womersley's, it 
>     could fall victim to the sort of review with which Sue and Amber are now
>     contending (in their case merely for a Rapid Communication).
>>>>Needs discussion in EB.
> 
>  -  Evidently this work is a significant improvement on the earlier Womersley
>     analysis, but that doesn't yet come across in the Letter.  If Jianming and
>     Sailesh now have better numbers for all the results in John's Letter,
>     would it make sense to update them in this new publication?  This would
>     broaden and strengthen it.
>>>>Work is in progress.
> 
> Hope that this early feedback is helpful.
> 
>                                    Mark
> 

John Womersley's comments (Responses are preceded by >>>>)
-------------------------

From:	MX%"womersle@d0chb.fnal.gov" 12-MAR-1997 21:56:48.80
To:MX%"hobbs@d0sgi4.fnal.gov",MX%"eno@umdzr1.umd.edu",MX%"qianj@fnald0.fnal.gov"
CC:	MX%"womersle@d0chb.fnal.gov"
Subj:	Re: *** PAPER DRAFT ***: PRL for Gauge Mediated SUSY

John, Sarah and Jianming,

    I am happy with this analysis. The PRL needs a little work with
the English (I will leave that to Ferbel) but the structure is fine. 

	My main concern is that the results seem very focused
on one interpretation from one paper (Ref. 3).  Do we have no
sensitivity to the other (selectron-pair) interpretation of the CDF event?
(e.g. Fig 3 in Ref 3, also Lopez and Nanopoulos, hep-ph/9607220; 
or Dimopoulos et al, hep-ph/9604452).  It would seem that with
some more MC we could address this possibility too. Even if we 
can't, there are other papers that have suggested chargino/neutralino
interpretations of the CDF event, e.g. Kane and Co. in hep-ph/9602239
and hep-ph/9607414. Are we sure we rule out their versions of the chargino
interpretaion of the CDF event?  If we are going to conclude what we
conclude in the paragraph before the acknowledgements, we'd better
be certain we do.
>>>>Jianming's response is as follows.  We can discuss this in the editorial
>>>>board.
>>>>
>>>>Don't agree with the first statement. The paper is NOT focused on CDF       
>>>>event. Instead the paper is focused on the gauge-mediated SUSY model        
>>>>with the first experimental bounds from ppbar collisions. The analysis      
>>>>stands on its own without the need to mention the CDF event.                
>>>>Excluding some interpretations of the CDF event is the direct consequence   
>>>>of the bounds on the SUSY model. On Kane's chargino interpretation of       
>>>>the CDF event is very similar to that of Ellis et al though Kane et al      
>>>>didn't speculate region of SUSY parameter space in their paper. I think     
>>>>the paper should emphasize on the bounds in the SUSY parameter space and    
>>>>the mass limits on the chargino and neutralino derived from the analysis.   
>>>>
>>>>The selectron-pair interpretation arises from the supergravity-inspired
>>>>models which are very different from gauge-mediated models. I don't think
>>>>we have the sensitivity to rule out that type of models. To say anything
>>>>on those models will probably take another 6-12 months of work and the
>>>>results won't fit into the current paper. This paper is about the gauge
>>>>mediated SUSY models, not about the CDF events. It is almost impossible
>>>>to exclude every possible interpretations of the CDF event.

	By the way, Ref. 4 is now PRL 78 (1997) 2070.
>>>>Done
					JW

Sue Blessing's handwritten comments
-----------------------------------

I adopted essentially all of her comments of a word-smithing and organizational
nature.  I will describe only those suggestions which affected the physics
information  content.

Sue suggested using transverse energy instead of transverse momentum
everywhere.  Done.

Sue suggested describing the CDF event or at least adding a reference to it in
the introduction.  Done.

Sue asked that a reference be added after: 
"the gaugino-higgsino sector is parameterized by $M_1$, $M_2$,
$\mu$ and $\tan\beta$, where $M_1$ and $M_2$ are the $U(1)$ and $SU(2)$ 
gaugino mass parameters at the electroweak scale, $\mu$ is the higgsino mass 
parameter, and $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values 
of the two higgs doublets."  Could Jianming provide the reference?

Sue suggests removal of the phrase "among themselves and with the Standard Model
particles" from the last sentence of paragraph two.  Done.

Sue suggested to add the sentence "Additionally we assume tan phi > 1."
after the sentence "We assume $\tan\beta>1$ in this analysis."  Jianming, I
don't understand this suggestion.  Do you?

Sue asks what tan beta is used in fig 1 for the two points in SUSY parameter
space.  Jianming?

Sue suggests defining R-parity.  I rewrote the R-parity part to make it more
transparent.

Sue suggests that in Fig.3, "Speculated" should be changed to "suggested" in
the figure caption.  I changed it.  She also questions it's appearance in the 
figure legend.  How about "chargino" or "chargino interpretation" in the legend
(rather than "suggested")?

Sue asks for a page number in the last reference, S. Park.  I got it from 
SLAC SPIRES HEP.

Terry Huering's handwritten comments
------------------------------------

I adopted essentially all of Terry's comments of a word-smithing and
organizational nature. 

Terry asked if the 7% uncertainty in the photon i.d. efficiency, which dominates
the 10% systematic error on the efficiency, be reduced.
Jianming responds that the uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty of
the photon conversion.  They are in the process of running more Monte Carlo 
events.  It is expected that the error will be reduced to about 4-5%, and 
the resulting total efficiency will be reduced accordingly.

Jay Wightman's comments (Responses are preceded by >>>>)
-----------------------

From:	MX%"WIGHTMAN@D0ISU1.FNAL.GOV" 21-MAR-1997 11:31:28.09
To:	MX%"qianj@umich.edu"
CC:     MX%"eno@alexander.physics.umd.edu",MX%"hobbs@fnal.FNAL.GOV",
        MX%"WIGHTMAN@D0ISU1.FNAL.GOV"
Subj:	Comments on the Gauge-Mediated SUSY PRL Draft

Hi,

I have read the draft PRL, ``Search for the Pair Production of Charginos and
Neutralinos in Models with Low Energy Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking,''
and have the following comments:

1.)Abstract
    We do not measure transverse momentum; we measure transverse energy.
    "...and 80 GeV/c^2 for the lightest neutralino are derived."
>>>>Done

2.)Page 3, 1st column, 1st paragraph
    "...considerable theoretical interest recently [2,3]."  >>>> Done
    "...gravity-mediated models is generally of..." >>>> Omitted "generally of" 
    "...resulting in a massive gravitino..."  >>>> Done
    "...(as is often the case and is assumed here)."  >>>> Done

3.)Page 3, 1st column, 2nd paragraph
    "...higgsino mass parameter and tan beta is the..."  >>>>Done
    "...which is assumed here, M1 and M2 have..."  >>>>Rewrote
    "...couplings among themselves and with..."  >>>>Done

4.)Page 3, 1st column, 3rd paragraph
    "...a direct search for supersymmetry with a..."  >>>>Done
    "...and chargino pair production in..."  >>>>Done
    "...at the Tevatron with R-parity conservation."  >>>>Done
    "...the pair production of the charginos..."  >>>>Done
    "...with large missing transverse energy..."  >>>>Done

5.)Page 3, 1st column, 4th paragraph
    "...with large missing transverse energy in..."  >>>>Done
    "...the first experimental study of these models in..."  >>>>Removed

6.)Page 3, 2nd column, 1st paragraph
    "The transverse energy imbalance..."  >>>>Rewrote

7.)Page 3, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph
    "Events passing the kinematic requirements (1) and (2) are called gamma
    gamma events."  >>>>Rewrote

8.)Page 4, 1st column, 1st paragraph
    "...expected to suffer from similar..."  >>>>Rewrote
    "...Z->tau tau->eed and ttbar->ee+jets production."  >>>>Done
    "...expected distributions from supersymmetry for two..."  >>>>Done

9.)Page 4, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph
    "...we observe no excess of events above the expectation from
    misidentification and mismeasurement."  >>>>Done
    "We compute the 95% C.L. upper limit on the cross section for teh Mote Carlo
    points in the..."  >>>>Done except left in "sampled"
    "The calculation takes into account..."  >>>>Done
    "...from a few hundreds of nanobarns for light..."  >>Rewritten

10.)Page 4, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph
    "...around the sampled points until the theoretical cross section exceeded
    the upper limit, where the theoretical cross section was calculated..."
  >>>>Done
    "...below the lines is excluded..."  
>>>>"...regions below the lines are excluded..." 

11.)Page 5, 1st column, 1st paragraph
    "Low mass limits of 158 GeV/c^2 for the lightest chargino and 80 GeV/c^2 for
    the lightest neutralino are derived from the bounds."  This is not obvious
    to me from the figure.  The curve of constant chi_1+ mass = 158 hugs the
    vertical part of our bound for both signs of mu, while the curve of constant
    chi_10 mass = 80 hugs the horizontal part of our bound for mu<0.  For mu>0,
    this curve lies below our stated bound entirely.  Can you explain how you
    derive these limits?  
>>>>These curves of constant mass lie just within or on the boundary of the
>>>>excluded region.  Sparticles of these masses (158 and 80) are therefore
>>>>excluded at 95% CL.  If the masses were any higher, the curves of constant
>>>>mass would no longer lie only in the excluded region, but would lie in the
>>>>allowed region, at least for some mu values.  Therefore 158 and 80 are
>>>>the mass limits at 95% CL.  I rewrote the sentence to clarify this.

    In your supporting D0Note, you list the limits as 150
    and 75, respectively.  How have they improved since the D0Note?
>>>>Yes, more MC has been run and the limits have been reevaluated more
>>>>precisely.

12.)Fig. 1
    Caption: "...expected distributions from supersymmetry."  >>>>Rewrote

13.)References
    General comment on format of references: et al is a valid abbreviation of
    the author list for more than 3 authors.  If you have 3 or fewer authors,
    then you must list all of their names.  >>>>Done except as shown below.
    [1]D.A. Dicus, ...
    [2]D.R. Stump, M. Wiest, and C.P. Yuan
       S. Dimopoulos, S. Thomas, and J. Wells
       S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, and S. Thomas >>>> +S.Raby, 4 authors, use et al.
       K. Babu, C. Kolda, and F. Wilczek
       J.L. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoulos, A. Zichichi
       J. Bagger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 1002; 78 (1997) 2497.
       (Side comment: do we need to reference all of these, especially if there
       is a concern regarding space?)  
>>>>So far, space is not a problem but we will keep this comment in mind.
    [3]J. Ellis, J.L. Lopez, and D.V. Nanopoulos
    [4]D0 Collaboration, S. Abachi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 2070.
    [9]Particle Data Group, R.M. Barnett et al., Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1.
>>>>All done except as shown above.  Thanks for the thorough check of the
>>>>references.

My overall impression is highly favorable.  This is a nice piece of work and
effectively shoots down the light gravitino model of Kane and co-workers.  I
think this should proceed to the next stage of submission.

If you have any questions regarding any of my comments, please do not hesitate 
to ask.

				Take care,
				   Jay

Doug Norman's comments (Responses are preceded by >>>>)
----------------------

From:	MX%"NORMAN@D0TAM1.FNAL.GOV" 13-MAR-1997 15:02:40.08
To:	MX%"QIANJ@D0TAM1.FNAL.GOV",MX%"HOBBS@D0TAM1.FNAL.GOV",
        MX%"SCENO@D0TAM1.FNAL.GOV"
Subj:	comments

      Hi,

      Here are some comments on the low energy gauge mediated paper.

      Generally, I like the very direct tone of the paper and its concise
      presentation.

      In the abstract, the prepositional phrase "in the model" in the last
sentence should be earlier in the sentence:

"... space in *this* model speculated..."
>>>>Rewritten

     You may want to change the PACS numbers to something related to SUSY.
>>>>I agree.  What you saw must have been copied from a top paper.
>>>>I think it should be (and I will change it to):
>>>> 14.80.Ly, Properties of supersymmetric partners of known particles
>>>> 12.60.Jv, Supersymmetric models
>>>> 13.85.Rm, Limits on production of particles
>>>>rather than what you saw or what is on the current version:
>>>> 14.80.-j, Properties of other particles (including hypothetical)
>>>> 13.85.Rm, Limits on production of particles
>>>> 12.10.-g, Unified field theories and models

     In general, throughout the paper I notice several unnecessary
  tense shifts.
>>>>I converted the whole paper to present tense wherever possible.

     In the second paragraph on page three in the next to last sentence,
the wording is confusing. The phrase " among *themselves* and with the
Standard Model particles" can be left out.
>>>>I removed it.

     In the fifth paragraph on page 3, you do not define the symbols
eta and phi. 
>>>>Defined.
"Road" sounds like jargon. 
>>>>I couldn't think of a good alternative.  I think it is acceptable tracking 
>>>>language.
The phrase "in an event" in the last sentence of paragraph 5 can be left out, 
it is unnecessary.
>>>>Done.

     In your "kinematic requirements (1)... and (2)...." you point out this 
hole in eta. Do you think you need to explain this perhaps?
>>>>I don't think it is necessary to explain this particular feature of the
>>>>selection.  I did put this text in-line rather than displayed as equations,
>>>>so it is less prominent.

    The last sentence of the sixth paragraph needs to be rewritten, perhaps
"Events passing the kinematic requirements (1) and (2) make up the
\gamma\gamma sample".
>>>>Rewritten

    In paragraph seven the sentence that begins 
"This background was estimated..." needs adjustment, something like:
 
"This background was estimated using events with two electromagnetic-like
clusters. These events were selected by requiring one of the two clusters 
to fail the identification requirements."
>>>>Rewritten

   At this point you may want to make a statement that this is a QCD sample
as oppose to a drell-yan sample or whatever, and you can leave out the cryptic
"(QCD sample)" used later.
>>>>Rewritten

   In the next sentence beginning with "In addition, the events..." leave
out "that on".
>>>>Rewritten

    On page 4 at the top of the second column the sentence beginning
"The Monte Carlo events..." needs rewriting. The MC events are not
"required to pass" as in a event selection cut. 
>>>>Rewritten as follows: To determine the signal efficiencies, 
>>>>Monte Carlo events were run through a \geant\~\cite{geant} 
>>>>based D\O\ detector simulation program, a trigger simulator, and the same
>>>>trigger requirements, reconstruction, and analysis as the data. 

   In the next sentence, "The total efficiency for supersymmetry..."
Do you mean all models?? Also perhaps O(10-4) should just be 0.0%.
>>>>Rewritten to say "The total signal efficiency..."

   At the bottom of the second column on page 4 the sentence beginning
"In general, the bounds..." is a little confusing. Perhaps you could
move the phrase "for a larger tanB", e.g, "In general for a larger tanB,
the bounds are stronger..."
>>>>Rewritten

   It's a little hard to tell the dash and dot-dash lines in figure three
but not impossible.
>>>>Jianming agrees and will work on it.

                                              Regards,
                                                  Doug

Tom Trippe's comments
---------------------

In the sentence "If $\tilde\chi^0_1$ has a non-zero photino component (as is 
often the case and as is assumed here)...", what does "as is often the case"
mean?  It implies that supersymmetric particles exist.  Could it mean "as in
most models"?

I added a sentence to the 4th paragraph about the differences between
John's analysis and this.  
"The new analysis includes better electron rejection from tracking chamber 
information, increased $\eta$ coverage, and 14% more data, more than doubling 
the signal acceptance and the S/B ratio."
More work needs to be done to explain the benefits of the new analysis.

The expression "high $E_T$ diphoton events with large missing
transverse energy~(\met)." is unclear since high $E_T$ appears to qualify
"events" instead of qualifying each photon.  Also $E_T$ isn't defined. 
Where it first appears in the text (In the supersymmetry model description)
I changed it to "events with two high transverse energy ($E_T$) photons and 
large missing transverse energy~(\met)."  I left it as is elsewhere.

In the conclusion I changed "limits vary widely from a few hundreds nanobarn.."
to "limits vary widely from several hundred picobarns..." because I think the
former is numerically incorrect.

I checked all references, added some initials to names, and replaced these:
J. Bagger {\it et al.}, hep-ph/9611229; reference replaced by Phys. Rev. Lett. 
{\bf 78}, 1002 (1997); erratum {\it ibid.} {\bf 78}, 2497 (1997);
J. Ellis, J. Lopez, and D. Nanopoulos, hep-ph/9610470. reference replaced by
Phys. Lett. B {\bf 394}, 354 (1997).
Augmented the S. Park reference as follows:
     S. Park, ``{\em Search for New Phenomena in CDF}'', 
                Batavia Collider Workshop 1995, Proceedings of the
                10th Topical Workshop on Proton-Antiproton Collider Physics,
                edited by R. Raja and J. Yoh (AIP Press, 1995), p. 62.

I changed to present tense everywhere, made many other wordsmithing changes,
and ran spell PRL.TEX.

I updated AUTHORS.TEX.143 (copied official LIST_OF_AUTHORS.TEX.143)
I updated VISITORS.TEX.55 (copied official LIST_OF_VISITOR_ADDRESSES.TEX.55)