Link naar Ulli's code voor ILCSOFT



My (Jan T.) replies/comments/improvements to the replies and resulting
modifications of the part II paper, dated February 10, 2025.

But I start already commenting of some nonsense statements that appear now
in the abstract (lines 12-13) and main text (lines 46-47).
I hope they entered by some sort of blackout, because I see these lines
also appearing in the December 29, 2024 copy of the part I paper.

(P)->Corrected

If not, I will have to read the part II draft of the paper once more 
very carefully in full, to see whether other strange things have appeared 
in this draft part II paper.

I will insert my new comments, starting with the string
NEWJANT

Hope we can agree.

Jan
21 Feb 2025

---------------------------------------------

NEWJANT:
lines 12-13: REMOVE "using a 93.6 ... vapour."     i.e. including the dot

(P)->Done 


NEWJANT:
line 25: The resolution -> The track resolution

(P)->Done 



My comments to version 3 of the part II paper, dated January 7, 2025
====================================================================

line 42: add reference after "detector planes" for the Mimosa26 telescope
-> We refer to our previous paper for details and references 
NEWJANT:
I insist to keep it in.
I agree partly with your argument, but this simple request avoids
readers to go back to the part I paper, while they should go back to the
original Mimosa papers for details when needed.

(P)-> Removed 'Mimosa'  

NEWJANT:
newlines 46-47:
The TPC was operated using a 95/3/2 percent gas mixture (by volume) of Ar/CF4/iC4H10
with a small amount of oxygen and water vapour.

(P)-> Done 

lines 62-63: do not split "B = 0 T" over two lines
-> Added {} (hope it works)
NEWJANT:
No it does NOT: you should keep the "B = 0 T" in latex in between $-symbols to
have math representation

line 91: at low distances -> at low distances in the dN/dx distribution
-> Done
NEWJANT:
No; NOT DONE; is now newline 95

-> (P) that is not needed the first makes this clear


after line 99 in Eq. (1): make in the exponent the 'dot' into a 'central dot'
(so it will come a bit higher)
-> Done  

line 100: (xy) -> (xy) in pixel units
->Done

line 123: response divided -> response, divided
->Done 
NEWJANT:
No; NOT DONE; is now newline 128

->(P) Now done


line 124: method 1 -> the truncation method
->Done  

lines 125-126: my question before has not been answered yet.
Is it "can be" or "has been"?

-> It is "can be". No scaling correction has been applied.

page 7, Table 2: can you make it fit to within the normal text width,
e.g. by using smaller fonts?

-> This is beacause of the "enlarged font for the reviewer" and comes from elesviers layout fonts.
   One can read it so I leave it like this.

line 163: insert a space in between "in" and "Fig"
->Done

lines 164-167: I have a problem with the relative efficiency level numbers!
You say that the "derivative d" parameter is (about) 0.5 
But then deps/eps being dToT/TOT/d becomes ~ 2*dToT/ToT
while you seem to have taken ~ 0.5*dToT/ToT (+0.9% in line 164 for B=1 and
-0.6% in line 165 for B=0).
If I am right, then these two numbers would have to become: +3.6% and -2.6%

-> The formula was reverted (as I replied by email).  
   It should be d eps/ eps = d d ToT/ToT 

NEWJANT: OK, but then I propose to re-write in newlines 165-166 as:
The relative change in the single-electron efficiency \delta\epsilon/\epsilon can be
related to the relative change in the mean ToT by: 
 
->(P) Done 

 
page 9, caption, line 1: 5 GeV/c -> 6 GeV/c
->Done 

line 169: burst -> bursts (was not corrected before)
->Done 

line 178: 5 GeV/c -> 6 GeV/c
->Done 

line 202: will be -> has been
-> Reply: the results is not yet presented so "will be"

NEWJANT: do NOT agree. The sentence says in short what has been done in the following

-> (P) Corrected 


line 211: the residuals -> the track residuals
->Done 

page 12, Figure 4, caption,line 2: curved -> curve
->Done 

lines 223-224: I still don't understand why the local track values below pi/8
and above 15pi/8 were removed. There is no special geometrical reason why
to do so, as these local track angle regions ar not connected to a special
angular region in the detector
-> This is motivated by statistics. See my LCPTPC presentation https://agenda.linearcollider.org/event/10563/contributions/56091/attachments/40175/63733/PixelTPC_LCTPC_resolution.pdf backup slide  (last) where the number of hits is shown vs phi (circle)

NEWJANT: I will come back to this in a SEPARATE e-mail

(P)-> We discussed it 24 February

line 225: from which run(s) does the "selected data set" come? Beam energy?
-> run 6969 p = 6 GeV/c
"The resolution in the precision plane as a function of the local track angle will be measured in run 6969 of the $B$ = 1 T data set taken at a beam momentum of 6 GeV/c."

lines 226-228: why  does the "hit resolution" depend on the radius/momentum?
Are you thinking of multiple scattering at the very low momenta?  
Which data were re-weighted as a function of the circle radius?
I have difficulty understanding the details here.

-> Reply: Indeed the multiple scattering increases for low momentum particles (so lower radii).
-> Changed phrase to:
"Because the resolution depends on the radius (due to the mutliple scattering that increases at low momentum)"

NEWJANT: now in newline 233: mutliple -> multiple

->(P) Done

line 237: start new SECTION instead of (new)SUBSECTION, so would become
"Section 6"
->Done 

line 244: remove "expected"
->Done 

page 13, Eq. (4): replace 'dots' by 'central dots'
->Done 

NEWJANT: NOT fully; the DOT under the 2nd squarroot is actually missing

->(P) Done


line 279: cross check this number 0.6%, and change it if you agree with
my arguments on the "d derivative parameter"
-> Formula corrected (no update on numbers needed).


page 17: make the two URLs in refs [2] and [6] fit the text width, as you
apparently finally managed to do for the part I paper
-> Tried the same trick