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