ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Wow, you'd think that of all people, google would be good at linking to data. I can get a data rante, but not display it. Or, display it, and not link to it. So, copied: go to the sheet manually, sorry
2
3
General 15StructuralThe structure of the Introduction section (Sec 1) is not self consistent, and is also out of line with the overall structure of the paper.
First, there's a non-subsection part "Opening Paragraph/Layout of the paper describing the topics of sections 2-6" followed by named subsections to Sec. 1.
Then, there is a lot of detail in the named subsections of Sec. 1 that seems to go beyond an introduction. I think that material should be greatly condensed by reference to source material. For example, there is a lot of material on the detection channels that is basic established knowledge, and not original, specific, or particular to NOvA. If you have a reason for such detail, it should probably go in a section, not a subsection to the Introduction. 		This has been a difficult suggestion to address, because there are other suggestions from the collaboration and earlier reviews which specifically requested having introductory material. Andrew cleaned this up a fair bit. However, the high level of detail on the interaction channels is still in there. In our opinion, it is still appropriate, especially due to the mixed audience of HEP people and astro people. We received many comments early in the process from HEP people who were confused that our interaction channels were so different from those in the oscillation analysis, so we were careful to explain in the introduction. This material really is more of an introduction. One could imagine it going into section #2 where the simulation is described, but it is physics input to the simulation, and it is tied to the introductiory discussion of the physics of where neutrinos come from in the first place, which is definitely Intro not section #2 stuff. So, we think that what's there now is appropriate and is a compromise between competing comments from the collaboration.OpinionAH
4
General 16StructuralThe start of 3.3 is repetitive with earlier parts of Sec. 3.Andrew worked on this, I think it reads fine now.ResolvedAH
5
Abstract 17Misc.There are a number of prominent authors commented as "not found"We are working on an author database to fixed how this is treated.
This is specifcally not for the review committee or the paper authors, but for the authorship board
6
Abstract 18Misc.Why is the abstract not showing up in the pdf anymore? It seems we can have either the authorlist or the abstract but not bothElsivier's latex style is a pain to work with.
7
Abstract 24Typographic"C" for "carbon" needs to be capitalized, as does "MeV", and I think the "E" in "E_numu". Also some subscripts and superscripts are broken.Fixed. Well, sort of. It looks right but throws a latex error now: bibtex is doing some mangling I can't see.In progressAH
8
Sec 3-4422Is this rate really bigger than the cosmic rate? Also, this number does not agree with the table. The table lists 1.53 MHz for single channel noise, while 56.3 MHz is the activity after background suppression.It's the rate ofter the background hits suppression. Restructured this section - moved this paragreph towards the end of the subsection, i.e. after we discussed all the BG hits rejection, and right before we describe the clustering algResolvedASh
9
Sec 3-44831 per 5 μs does not agree with the single channel noise rate in the table.I don't know what we want to say here. Substituted with "uncorrelated in space and time", as I think this is more important argument than the rate here.ResolvedASh
10
Sec 3-4378Should we cite something for our Hough algorithm?Cited https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/664/7/072035, not sure if that's the right oneResolvedASh
11
Sec 3-4379Add a ref to NOvA reco paper for hough transform?Cited https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/664/7/072035, not sure if that's the right oneResolvedASh
12
Sec 3-4579Everything else is in ADC instead of pe. It would be useful to have the conversion somewhere.Andrey reports it's about 2ADC per pe (as per Alex and the Dubna test stand). So, pe converted to ADC in this discussion of timing resolution, no need to drag a whole nother unit into the paper.ResolvedAH
13
Sec 3-4386Do we *really* only veto Michel electrons for 2us? That would leave 38% of them accepted as signal. If we really do this, some justification needs to be given for why we aren't vetoing longer.Nope. The timing cuts for Michel are [-2,10] ms around the track end. Also it's comparing hits, not clusters. Fixed in the text
ResolvedASh
14
Sec 3-4402Need to define ADC before use, and ideally give a sense of it's meaning (~XXX MeV near the readout and YYY at the far end)ADC is defined in section 1.1 as "charge". The "MeV"-ness is defined later where it fits into the flow of the text.ResolvedAH
15
Sec 3-4523The light and energy at which corner of the detector needs checked. What are we saying here, and are we saying it correctly?It is ~2/3 of a MIP or 8 MeV at the dark corner. Text updated.ResolvedAH
16
FiguresFigure 4Right-hand plot would be easier to read if it had a legend on it instead of needing to refer to the caption.FixedResolvedASh
17
FiguresFigs. 11 & 12Make it more clear in the plots themselves which detector each is for. It’s difficult to look at the two side-by-side and figure out what the difference is, even though it is in the caption.Opinion
18
FiguresFigure 7in Left and Right panel: explicit text "FD" or Far Detector and "ND" or Near Detector can be usedDoneResolvedASh
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100