pi0 to two neutrinos publication from E949 2002

The access to the contents in this page should be limited to the E949 collaborators.

Upper Limit on the Branching Ratio for the Decay π0 →νν

E949 Collaboration, A.V. Artamonov, et al.,
Physical Review D volume 72, 091102(R) (2005) (4 pages)
Received 11 June 2005; published 11 November 2005
[PDF]

doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.091102
URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v72/e091102
PACS: 13.20.Cz, 14.40.Aq, 14.60.St

hep-ex/0506028 (11/June/2005)
Submitted tar-ball

Poster[ppt, pdf] for Kaon2005 conference (14/June/2005)

Paper accepted in PRD as a rapid communication

We have recieved an e-mail saying the paper has been accepted in PRD as a rapid comminucation.

Return-mail from the PRL editor :

We have recieved e-mails from the editor (PRL and PRD). (2005/Oct/17)
The manuscript is rejected by PRL and seems OK for PRD.

Resubmission of the manuscript and letter :

The revised manuscript and letter were submitted to PRL via the APS web page. (2005/Sep/07)

Revised manuscript (draft):

The latest draft of revised manuscript and e-mail to the editor, and latex source.

Pi0 to nu,nubar paper was submitted to PRL
and registered into hep-ex(arXiv) on 11/June/2005.
hep-ex/0506028 (11/June/2005)
Submitted tar-ball

Poster[ppt, pdf] for Kaon2005 conference (14/June/2005)


Obsolete scratch files :

We have received referee's reports :

(2005/Aug/04) Points :
  1. Editor recommended PR-D, but still would be willing to consider the PRL
    acceptance, if we can overcome all referee's comments.
  2. [Referee A] More explanations are required on Cacc (acceptance correction)
  3. [Referee A] English refinement; Some sentences start with a symbol,
    and end with a numeral.
  4. [Referee A] Not appropriate for PRL, small improvement, still big discrepancy
    from theoretical prediction. No new ideas, concepts, experimental methods.
    No broad interest.
  5. [Referee B] Appropriate for PRL. (He knows hep-ph/0409193 was accepted in the PRL.)
  6. [Referee B] Need more explanations in the introduction and conclusion.
    1. More comments on new physics.
      a "window" for an experimental signature for pi0-> nothing is suggested,
      but the window is not described (limits, etc)
    2. How this measurement is relevant to this window ?
    3. How it is relevant to other beyond the SM ?
    4. What are expected future results ?
  7. [Referee B] the following sentenses are confusing ...
    (current sentences:)
    "In the pi0 -> nu,nubar search, the presence of a 205-MeV/c pi0 is tagged by the
    corresponding 205-MeV/c pi+ from Kpi2 decay at rest;"
  8. [Referee B] the explanation of the DELCO is confusing ...
    (current sentences:)
    "A delayed coincidence requiring that the pi+ emerged from the target at least
    2ns after the K+ ensured that it originated from a K+ deay at rest, not from a
    scattered beam paritcle."
  9. [Referee B] Figure 3 is not described in the text.
For future update :
Response : hep-ex e-log: log-00 , log-01
Response : PRL e-mail : log-00 , log-01 , log-02

Current status from APS status database
For the database access, use the following keys : LF10317 (code), Artamonov (first author)



References :
Past documents :