hi, Wei-ming and Tatsuya: Thanks again for the new draft. I have gone through it quickly and it looks in reasonable shape. Here are my initial comments for this round, mostly minor. note that for this round, I skipped the basic stuff, such detector section etc, and I didn't look into the numbers yet, as I would like to get my initial comments back to you soon enough. cheers, Ted % thank you so much for doing this ========== comments ======= (0) page 1, title: the difference between this title and the previous one is "using a Neural Network at CDF"... but previous publication also used NN. is there a better title ? or the old title is just as good? note this is just a suggestion, to do some thinking. % It would be nice to use slight different title, so the paper would be different than the previous paper. How about "...using a Neural Network Discriminant at CDF", (1) page 2, footnote: e_nu should be nu_e, muon_nu should be nu_muon. % fixed (2) page 2, footnote: how about tau neutrino? (maybe it is still ok since you will have nu_e or nu_muon anyway). % probably ok, since tau contribution is small. (3) page 2, line 25-26: probably better with " .... reported by CDF and D0, using data .... 955 pb**-1 and 440 pb**-1, respectively". remove "( )". % fixed (4) page 2, line 27: "present an update search", perhaps better with "an update on the search ..." ? % fixed (5) page 2, line 29 and 36: jet probability and Jet Probability, better be consistent (lower case or upper case). % changed to "jet probability" (6) page 3, line 40: "Secs. VIII" --> "Sec. VIII". % fixed (7) page 5, line 103: perhaps remove the word "requirement" % fixed (8) page 5, line 107: need a better way to describe this: " The isolation cone .... ", perhaps also motivate the cut a little bit to make it more interesting. % rephased, "Because the lepton from a leptonic W decay is well-isolated from the rest of event, the cone of DR=0.4..." (9) page 5, line 112: "a lepton is unidentified" --> maybe "one of the (two) leptons is unidentified". % fixed (10) page 5, line 116-124: it would be better/clear if one motivates the improved MET requirement first, instead of just describing the cuts. a bit more than just "because of much higher QCD contamination". % that's probably the only reason, but let us know if you have specific suggestions. (11) page 8, line 189-190: the first half sentence doesn't seem to do much. in fact it seems repeating what was discussed before somehow. perhaps remove the first half sentence (up to "however"), start the sentence as "The sample tagged by ....". % fixed (12) page 8, line 192: remove "intended". % removed (13) page 8, line 204: define P_T (VTX) is a bit more clear, the same for "mass Mvtx". "....of vertex ..." --> "... of the vertex...". % rephased as " The sum transverse momentum P_T(VTX) and mass M_vtx of the tracks in association with the displaced vertex are useful..." (14) page 8, 206-207: the sentence needs some work. perhaps to finish it properly. ... " ... are best discriminators .... for what ?".... % added "...for b-jets." (15) page 9, line 226: "For a light-quark jet, all particles should originate from the primary vertex." .... how about Ks and Lamdas? perhaps change "all" to "most" ?... % fixed with " most" (16) page 10, line 256: maybe remove "also". as it is, it sounds like the signature can be *mimicked* by the actual signal. while it is true, it is probably not what we are trying to say. % removed "also" (17) page 16, line 381-383: the sentence is a bit too long... try make it simpler... %rephased (18) page 17, line 401: "The *uncertainty* due to the jet energy scale *uncertainty*...", perhaps just "The uncertainty on the jet energy scale ....". % fixed (19) page 18, line 414: ".... which provides a maximum sensitivity". this is not so obvious to a causal reader. if this is what you learned from studies, say so. % added " ... over a wide range of input conditions." (20) page 18, line 417: could remove the second "that". % fixed (21) page 18, line 424: " ... the testing *error* defined by how often a NN .... *correctly* classifies ...". had trouble understand the sentence as it is. do you mean "error" is defined by how often a NN "incorrectly" classifies ...? several thousand ---> thousands. % changed "correctly" -> "incorrectly" and removed "several thousand" (22) page 18, line 432: Mjj+ ===> do you need the +? % yes, it's not just Mjj, but plus a near-by jet (23) page 18, line 436: perhaps "the scalar sum of transverse energy from all loose jets"... % rephased "the scalar sum of transverse energy of the loose jets." (24) page 19, line 448-449: "show good agreement", .... "That confirms that our MC modeling is adequate"... this is a bit vague... is there a better way to say it? % How about this " All distributions are further checked and confirms that the data are well modeled by Monte Carlo events in both pretag and tag samples." (25) page 19, line 454: Figs. 2 --> Fig. 2 % fixed (26) page 19, line 458: condition --> perhaps "categories". % fixed (27) page 21, line 482: "The *effect* of shape systematic uncertainties on the network output *are* also studied ...".... ---> perhaps "The systematic uncertainties associated with the shape of network output are also studied .... ".... % rephased (28) page 22, line 485: credibility level.... why not just use "confidence level" ? % OK, changed (29) page 24, line 499+: the conclusion could use some improvements... don't have specific suggestion at this point though. % improved. (30) page 25, line 25: FIG.4 caption, try to keep the sentences shorter and simpler. % keep the first sentence and starts as " The expected (dash) and observed (solid) 95%..."