more information on my PhD thesis

errata (only non-trivial mistake) and updates in publication

• 5.4.6. (p81 l7) : The first sentence of the paragraph starting "The online COE cut was applied only for ..." can be removed. For evaluation of the L2 trigger bias, min. bias trigger data was used, by comparing with and without applying the online COE cut using flags given by DAQ.
• 7.3.6. (p133 l13) : Methods of systematic errors for SES was updated.
  • geometrical acceptance : distribution of rec. K_L energy in the K_L→3π⁰ sample was used for the new estimation; slight data/MC difference was fitted with a line and true K_L energy (mom.) was reweighted to check acceptance difference between signal and K_L→2π⁰ MC. Detail is described here.
  • L2 trigger effect : Ratios of phys. trigger and norm. trigger data was used to extract efficiency curve. Data set was the same with what was shown in Fig.7.17. (Now MC is not used) Ratio difference of signal acceptance values with the original effiency curve (given in Sec.5.4.6.; this was used in various analysis and difficult to be replaced) and the new curve was regarded as the systematic error.
• Fig.7.44 (p163) : The BG expectation value in the downstream of the signal box (0.56±0.11) was wrong, should be (0.16±0.11). The figures with the corrected values are [blinded], [box opened], and [with signal MC].
• Fig.H.1 (p201, appendix H) : The right two figures in the top line are identical. One of these should show distribution of two photons' distance on the calorimeter surface. The distance distribution is here.