Dear Florencia et al, Here are my comments on the draft NIM paper. (I apologize for the number of them. If you hadn't asked me to be an author, I probably would have skimmed the paper and then put it in a notebook!) Most of them are minor English comments or typos. There are a few more substantive suggestions and questions. NOTE: When I say "change", read that as "I suggest changing"! Regards, Mel 1. Page 5, line 13: Change "this" to "the" since it isn't clear what jet "this" refers to. 2. Page 11, line 15: Remove "both". (There are three items in the list that follows.) In line 16, remove "using" and from". 3. Page 14, line 11: Change "with magnitude" to "whose momentum has a magnitude". Otherwise the magnitude refers to the 4-momentum (whose magnitude is 0 by construction). Later in the sentence, change ", with a direction" to "and a direction". 4. Page 14, line 25: The rest of the sentence ending in "50%" is missing (the usual LaTex "%" problem). 5. Page 14, line 26: Change "the towers in the overlap region are assigned to the nearest jet" to "each tower in the overlap region is assigned to the nearest jet". This is to prevent the interpretation that all of the towers in the overlap region are moved as an ensemble. 6. Page 16, line 18: Change "5." to "5)." 7. Page 17, line 2: Change "an electron transverse energy" to "a muon transverse momentum". Also, in line 4, change "electrons" to "muons". 8. Page 17, line 19: Change "not equal" to "greater than". 9. Page 18, line 3: Change "For PYTHIA version so-called "Tune A [25]" to "For PYTHIA, the so-called "Tune A" version [25]". 10. Page 18, line 9: Change "And, particle" to "Particle". 11. Page 19, line 3: Change "are tuned" to "is tuned" (the subject is "each"). 12. Page 19, line 5: Change "with test beam." to "with test beam data.". 13. Page 20, line 1: Change "fracvtions" to "fractions". 14. Page 20, line 19: Change "pi0's" to "pi0 is". 15. Page 20, line 30: I don't count 18 parameters. The mean and sigma of f_pi0 and f_pi0^l are common to c_h, c_f, and c_l. So I count 10 parameters, each of which is a function of energy. 16. Page 22, line 23: Change "no tracks" to "no additional tracks". 17. Page 22, line 25: You lost the numerical value for Delta(R). 18. Page 23, figure 5 caption, line 4: Change "The cyan (medium shading) region is" to "The yellow and cyan (light and medium shading) regions constitute". 19. Page 24, footnote: Change "at" to "a". 20. Page 25, figure 7: Are the figures correct? The upper right plot shows the data more peaked near 50 GeV than the monte carlo, but in the lower left plot, just the opposite is true. 21. Page 27,lines 19-21: There should be some statement about the very different min-bias and test beam responses at 5 GeV (one is less than 0.6, the other above 0.8). 22. Page 27, line 24: Change "madqe" to "done". 23. Page 30, line 19: "relative phi" is not defined. 24. Page 31, line 8: "x_CES" is not defined. 25. Page 32, figure 13 caption: The caption says the abscissa is "x_CES", but the figures say it is "relative phi". 26. Page 35, line 7: Change "this" to "the eta dependence of the". 27. Page 36, line 1: Change "7" to "7 GeV". 28. Page 36, line 7: It is not clear what "by interpolating between the individual measurements versus eta^jet" means. 29. Page 36, line 9: Change "as function" to "as a function". 30. Page 36, line 15: Change "0.6 both" to "0.6 in both". 31. Page 39, line 2: Change "jet energy scale of jets" to "energy scale of jets". 32. Page 39, lines 18-20: You don't explain later in the section why this last sentence is true. 33. Page 39, lines 1 and 2: Change "is defined as the most probable value of the probability, dP(...), of measuring a jet with P_T^calo given" to "is taken as the most probable measured jet P_T, P_T^calo, given". Otherwise it reads as if the absolute correction is the value of the probability at the maximum probability point. Then I would start the next sentence as "The probability density function, dP(...), is parametrized". 34. Page 40, lines 6 and 7: Why are some "p_T" and some "P_T"? 35. Page 40, line 10: This equation doesn't seem correct. The left side has two differentials, while the right side has three (the last factor is defined in equation 23 to be the product of two differentials). 36. Page 40, line 12: Change "We then form" to "We form" unless you want the reader to see this as a two step process. 37. Page 40, line 31: Change "The most probable value of f(Delta-p_T)" to "The most probable value of Delta-p_T". 38. Page 47, figure 23: The next-to-top line should be dashed. 39. Page 48, line 17: Should it say "the data appear to deviate" since no point is more than 1 sigma above the straight line? 40. Page 49, lines 4-5: Will this last line be clear to the reader? Another possibility is to note the fact that CLC energy is required, implying that a pbar-p collision is present, which invalidates the extrapolation to zero luminosity. Also I think it is worthwhile pointing out how well these values scale with the area of the cones. 41. Page 52, line 34: I don't understand "2%". The 0.4 cone correction is 10% in the figure the reader is looking at. 42. Page 53, line 1: "12%" looks like 18% in the figure. 43. Page 53, line 6: Change the second "1.2" to "1.0". 44. Page 53, figure 27: Why does the vertical axis label have "-1" at the end? Isn't P_T^parton/P_T^particle the OOC correction? But more importantly, equation 1 in the paper defines the out-of-cone correction as additive, not multiplicative. 45. Page 54, line 9: Change "is" to "has been" or "must be". As it is now, it is not clear whether this factor is already present in figure 28. 46. Page 54, the 9th line in the paragraph after line 20: Change "are selected, this region" to "are selected; this region". 47. Page 55, line 1: Change "show" to "shows". In the next line, change "are taken as systematic" to "is taken as the systematic". 48. Page 55, line 6: Change "Figure 24" to "Figure 25". 49. Page 57, line 2: "Z->jj" is not mentioned in this section. 50. Page 57, line 5: "ttbar" is not mentioned in this section. 51. Page 57, lines 15-16: Change "extend" to "extent" and "account" to "accounts". Also is this statement too strong, in particular the words "fully" and "any"? There could be a systematic under-measurement of the jet energy scale that is balanced by improperly modeled monte carlo ISR or k_T effects. 52. Page 62, line 9: Change ",," to ",". 53. Page 63, line 11: Change "to" to "than". 54. Page 64, figure 34: The title of the plots say "JetClu", which I think isn't defined anywhere. Also the caption says that the data is in the plots in addition to the monte carlos. I don't see it. The caption also doesn't say that the plots are for the response at particle level. 55. Page 64, line 20: Change "as correction" to "as the correction". 56. Page 66, line 10: Change "applying the all" to "applying all". 57. Page 66, line 21: Change "was" to "is" to agree with the tense used elsewhere. 58. Page 66, line 28: The W and Z mass results are not presented in this section. 59. Page 68, figure 38 caption: Only color guides are given. It won't be understood in black and white. 60. Page 70, line 9: Change "function" to "a function". 61. Page 70, figure 40: Again the next-to-top line should be dashed. 62. Page 72, lines 11-12: A verb is needed in the sentence starting with "Using Monte Carlo".