Hi Thomas,
Thanks very much for collecting the comments. Two comments on your comments ;-)
1. About the unfolding. I think I understand why they do it, but I'm nervous about the numerical effect it has on the multiplicity distribution without assigning systematics. I propose instead of "it is not clear why the unfolding is applied" a comment like: "It is not clear how much the unfolding numerically contributes to the multiplicity distribution. Does it change a lot with respect to simple scaling? Is there no systematics assigned to the unfolding assumption?"
2. KNO (Koba, Nielsen, Oleson) scaling states that the multiplicity distribution expressed in the KNO variable is independent of collision energy. What I remember from my undergraduate study is that a modified version of this (KNO-G scaling) leads to fact that multiplicity distributions can be described as universal negative binomial distributions, which is still useful today. So I have no objection against plotting distributions versus the KNO variable (it is a simple one anyway). It could just use a few words of introduction *why* this is being done. (I had to look up my master thesis to refresh my memory of this!)
cheers, - Marcel
On 8 November 2011 12:12, thomas thomas.bauer@nikhef.nl wrote:
Dear all,
please find in the attachment a summary of the comments made yesterday wrt the Multiplicity paper.
The deadline for submitting comments is today. sorry for being so late. I hope i have included all the relevant comments.
I will submit the comments today at 17:00
Thanks in advance for corrections and additions.
Kind regards, Thomas
-- Thomas S. Bauer
NIKHEF email: thomas @ nikhef.nl P.O. Box 41.882 tel. : (+31)-20- 5 92 20 50 1009 DB Amsterdam, The Netherlands fax : (+31)-20- 5 92 51 55
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics