Comments

3. From Monika Blanke

Hi all,

Thanks a lot for your effort, overall I think the draft is very good. Here's a few comments I have - clearly all of them are meant to be merely suggestive (and I am not a native speaker, so language stuff might simply be wrong):

Overall I feel that kaon physics is a bit underrepresented in the present version. The K theory section completely lacks the model-discriminating power of studying various rare K decays in a correlated manner. Also the complementarity of K and B physics should in my opinion be stressed more.
The K experiments get only as much space as the two super flavor factories. While I agree that there are many more channels to measure in the B system and thus more space is needed to describe the program, the present version might give the impression that the K physics program is kind of secondary.

Line 2 and 34: favor physcis ---> flavor physics

Line 42, 43: "theoretical uncertainties in calculating direct CP violation in K decay" - it should be made clear that this comment applies only to the case of epsilon', but not to e.g. the theoretically very clean K_L -> pi^0 nu nu

Fig. 1-1 and corresponding statements in the text: I am somewhat surprised about the conclusion that the NP contribution in B_d mixing may still be comparable to the SM one. What's the lattice input that has been used here?

Line 124, 125: The sentence refers to epsilon', although Table 1-1lists only the constraints on Delta F = 2 operators.

Line 128, 129: "While Delta m_K and epsilon_K..." - I wouldn't mention those two in the same breath, as epsilon_K is much cleaner due to the absence of long-distance contributions.

Line 195: addition ---> additional

Line 209: that it a SUSY contribution ---> that a SUSY contribution

Line 229-231: "For example..." - this sentence strictly speaking applies only to gluino and neutralino contributions

Line 384: not now known ---> not yet known

Line 403: "making a possible a measurement" - too many "a"

Line 409: complimentary ---> complementary

Line 486: existance ---> existence

Line 520: cited ---> sited

Line 597-599: "contradict" is way too strong here - the recent Tevatron data agree with the SM prediction at about 1sigma. Also ref. [58] needs to be fixed.

Line 628: ability handle ---> ability to handle

Line 658: could come be ---> could be

Line 721: in the discriminating ---> in discriminating

Line 732: quantum number ---> quantum numbers

Best,
Monika

Dear All,

I have read through the draft and it is well written. I have a few minor comments that I wanted to share with you.

Lines 149-152: You can add that the reduction of the error on |Vcb| will have a very large impact on these observables. You should also cite the papers by Brod et. al. arXiv: 1108.2036 and arXiv:1009.0947, as was discussed in a previous communication.

Lines 473-482: Please cite arXiv:1012.3167. The fact that the resolved photon contribution vanish for A_{CP}( B-> X_{s+d} \gamma) is crucial for the utility of this measurement. In the case of A_{CP}( B-> X_{s} \gamma), often cited as one of the important measurements of the super B factories, the resolved photon contributions degrade the theoretical prediction.

Lines 653-655: The references to KEK-B and SuperB should appear much earlier in the draft. Also, since they are discussed in an earlier section, there no need to reintroduce them.

Lines 760-765: I would omit the line "This would make sense if the physics opportunities provided by these experiments were second class." It sounds as an insult to our colleagues from Asia and Europe. Also, the last sentence is not clear. I would add, "namely CERN" and "namely LHCb" and "namely NA62" in the appropriate places. In general it seems to me that the entire paragraph should be rewritten.

Line 796: I would suggest to add a closing sentence to the report.

Sincerely,

Gil Paz
---
Dear All,

One comment I forgot to mention is the synergy with other working groups such as ``Hidden Sector Photons, Axions, and WISPS" Working Group. See for example Bertrand Echenard's talk

https://twindico.hep.anl.gov/indico/getFile.py/access?contribId=18&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=751

Gil

Dear Jack, Joel, Ritchie, and Zoltan,

Thank you all for your hard work on this document. You've done a great job synthesizing a lot of information and have summarized the physics motivations, experimental opportunities, and recommendations of the working group clearly. Here are a few suggestions that I think will improve the document even further.

1) I find the sentence in line 106 "Thus, deviations from the SM of any size may occur below the current bounds, ..." a bit awkward and confusing, although I think I know what you intend. Maybe you could say something like "Sizeable deviations from the SM, however, are still allowed by the current bounds, and in a large class of models we expect observable effects."

2) You emphasize quite well the important point that some measurements are limited by theoretical uncertainties, and that it's important to understand the SM uncertainties and reduce them where needed (and where possible). I think that this point would be made even more sharply if the "SM Theory" columns in Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 included uncertainties. Otherwise you cannot really make a meaningful comparison.

3) I agree with your bullet-point recommendations in section 1.4 wholeheartedly. However, I believe that this section could be made more effective if the motivations were made with a more positive spin. Clearly we in the flavor-physics community wish that the US hadn't largely abandoned the domestic experimental flavor-physics program, but discussing it's demise in great detail is probably too negative. Further, I don't think that the fact that the only flavor-physics experiments are in Asia or Europe is a good argument for building one here. If we thought that the experiments in Asia or Europe were doing the best job possible then we would be fine with simply joining these experiments to pursue the physics. The point is that we can do *better* experiments in the US by exploiting existing expertise and experimental facilities such as the proton accelerator complex at Fermilab. ORKA is a great example; it will measure the branching fraction to a higher precision than NA62. So I think that we need to emphasize the following points:

-- The B-factories, CLEO, Fermilab and BNL kaon experiments, etc. have given us a wealth of expertise in flavor physics in the US.
-- There is a vibrant flavor-physics community in the US that is interested in reviving domestic heavy-flavor experiments.
-- There are great physics opportunities where we can do a better job than experiments running or proposed in Asia and Europe, for relatively low cost, and we should take advantage of them.

Oh, and I also found a minor typo on line 42: 1960-s --> 1960s

I hope that you find these comments helpful. Please let me know if you need clarifications or other information from me.

Cheers,
Ruth

7. From Andreas Kronfeld, Ruth Van de Water, Norman Christ, Paul Mackenzie, Stephen Sharpe, and Robert Sugar

Dear Jack, Ritchie, Joel, and Zoltan,

Thank you for excellent work drafting this Report of the Heavy Quarks Working Group. You have done a great job synthesizing a lot of information in a clear and well-written manner. We have some suggestions, however, for how to improve the presentation of the current state of lattice QCD and its role in the future heavy-flavor intensity frontier program.

Your e-mail stated "Some work on the references is still needed." Since we are more familiar with the literature on lattice QCD, we are providing (at the end of this e-mail) specific suggestions. We have tried to limit ourselves to calculations with 2+1 sea quarks, and only quote the most recent effort of any given collaboration. One of the attached files has the BibTeX code for these papers.

We believe that computing for lattice QCD should be included among the future facilities in Sec. 1.4. For example, one of the bullets could/should read:

"
• Lattice QCD is an essential component of the heavy-flavor intensity frontier program, without which many measurements would make significantly less impact. The U.S. should continue its excellent support of lattice-QCD computer resources, support which has propelled U.S. leadership in a broad program of lattice-QCD calculations critical to flavor physics.
"

There are several places in which the description of lattice QCD could be made more accurate and be brought up to date.

Lines 257-259 strike us as weak and superficial. Here is a suggested replacement for the first two paragraphs of Sec. 1.2.4:

"
Because heavy quarks are colored particles, the heavy-quark experimental program has to be paralleled with theoretical research in QCD. One successful avenue is to use effective field theories to separate the high scales of the $b$-quark mass and electroweak physics, as in heavy-quark effective theory (HQET) and soft-collinear effective theory (SCET). For kaons, it is useful to examine the restrictions of Goldstone-boson physics with chiral perturbation theory (ChPT). The effective field theories provide relations between different measurable quantities, so that a suite of measurements can be used to understand both QCD and electroweak physics.

In many cases it is necessary to calculate the hadronic matrix element explicitly, and here the tool of choice is lattice gauge theory. The last several years have witnessed remarkable advances in these calculations. A wide variety of quantities agree well with experiment within a few per cent~\cite{Davies:2003ik}, including the baryon spectrum~\cite{Durr:2008zz}. Several quantities in flavor physics were predicted and later confirmed by experiment, including charmed semileptonic form factors~\cite{Aubin:2004ej}, the mass of the $B_c$ meson~\cite{Allison:2004be}, and $D$ and $D_s$ decay constants~\cite{Aubin:2005ar,Follana:2007uv}. Lattice-QCD calculations in the kaon sector are now used, with the $K_{\ell2}$ and $K_{\ell3}$ branching ratios, to determine $|V_{us}|$~\cite{Follana:2007uv,Lubicz:2009ht,Boyle:2010bh}. In fact, there are now two or more realistic three-flavor lattice-QCD calculations of all hadronic weak matrix elements needed for the standard global CKM unitarity triangle fit, and averages of these quantities are provided in Refs.~\cite{Laiho:2009eu,Colangelo:2010et}. Moreover, the lattice-QCD community has a good track record of providing reliable forecasts of their uncertainties. A set of such forecasts was prepared for this workshop and is reproduced in Table~\ref{tab:error}.

The techniques used to improve our understanding of QCD for flavor physics often find further application in other parts of particle physics. For example, SCET is being applied to jet physics to aid discoveries at the LHC [refs], and lattice QCD is being applied to the matrix elements needed in dark-matter detection~\cite{Giedt:2009mr}.
"

The table would be that from the document that USQCD submitted. The source for the table is attached.

With this change, it would be better to change wording in a sentence on lines 279-280, to distinguish "predict" from "reproduce":

"
Lattice QCD calculations have reproduced the spectrum of charmonium and bottomonium states~\cite{Follana:2006rc,Meinel:2009rd,Burch:2009az,Mohler:2011ke,Dowdall:2011wh} and predicted the glueball spectrum~\cite{Sexton:1995kd,Morningstar:1999rf}.
"

Comment on lines 202-206: The discussion of the B -> tau nu tension assumes a value for |V_{ub}| and, as you know, there is tension in the inclusive and exclusive methods. The (most recent) lattice-QCD papers on the exclusive form factor, used by both BaBar and Belle, are \cite{Dalgic:2006dt,Bailey:2008wp}. Implications of the three ways to "determine" |V_{ub}| have been explored by Crivellin \cite{Crivellin:2009sd} and by Blanke et alia \cite{Blanke:2011ry}.

Lines 683-686: In our opinion, the CLEO-c program was indeed useful to persuade nonexperts that lattice QCD practitioners had their methods under control. This is, in part, because most of the internal testing is too technical. At present, however, the successful predictions (see above) and recognition that almost all lattice-QCD flavor phenomenology has full error budgets warrant a rephrasing:

"
BES~III should excel in measuring $D$ and $D_s$ leptonic branching fractions and many form factors determined from semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. These can be combined with corresponding lattice-QCD calculations to yield direct determinations of $|V_{cd}|$ and $|V_{cs}|$ (without assuming CKM unitarity). This is analogous to the B system, where lattice QCD and experiment are combined to extract CKM matrix elements from measurements of decays, CP violation, and mixing.
"

Lines 128-131: We think the the last two sentences of the first paragraph of Sec. 1.2.1 could be improved physics-wise by replacing "While $\Delta m_K$ and $\epsilon_K$ ... substantial new physics contribution." with

"
As shown in Table 1-1, the present rough estimate of $\Delta m_K$ provides a significant bound on FCNC. This bound will become more stringent as lattice-QCD calculations of this quantity become available. As discussed below, $\epsilon_K$ is now very accurately determined theoretically, providing the most stringent constraints in Table 1-1. At present the hadronic uncertainties in
the SM calculation of $\epsilon'$ are large because two terms of opposite sign and comparable magnitude contribute. Progress in lattice QCD should make $\epsilon'$ tractable in the future, judging from current progress on the $\Delta I=3/2$ and $1/2$ amplitudes~\cite{Blum:2011pu,Blum:2011ng}. At present, however, we can neither rule out, nor prove, that it receives a substantial new physics contribution.
"

We hope you find these suggestions easy to implement. Thanks again for your leadership in crafting this important document. Cheers,

Andreas Kronfeld
Ruth Van de Water
Norman Christ
Paul Mackenzie
Stephen Sharpe
Robert Sugar

Suggested additional references on lattice QCD:

151-152: extend this sentence to note that improved theory is needed

154 has improved in the last decade remarkably~\cite{Aubin:2009jh,Aoki:2010pe,Durr:2011ap,Bae:2011ff},

154 ..., and it is hoped that $\epsilon'$ might also become tractable in the future ->
..., and significant progress is being made on $K\to\pi\pi$ amplitudes needed for $\epsilon'$.

155 A lattice QCD determination of the charm loop contribution to $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ would also be worth pursuing~\cite{Isidori:2005tv}.

156 And, of course, lattice QCD is important for determining $|V_{cb}|$ from semileptonic $B$ decays~\cite{Bernard:2008dn,Qiu:2011ur}.

171 improve the determination of $|V_{ub}|$, using both continuum methods [refs] and lattice QCD~\cite{Dalgic:2006dt,Bailey:2008wp}

204 meson decay constant~\cite{Gamiz:2009ku,McNeile:2011ng,Bazavov:2011aa}.

280 states~\cite{Follana:2006rc,Meinel:2009rd,Burch:2009az,Mohler:2011ke,Dowdall:2011wh} and the glueball spectrum~\cite{Sexton:1995kd,Morningstar:1999rf}.

8. From Michele Papucci

11: favor -> flavor
14: why a "coupling" should have an arrow like in t -> s ?
34: why is the hierarchy problem just a puzzle?
34: favor -> flavor

1st paragraph is kind of alternating back and forth between saying flavor probes high mass scale and reveals features of TeV NP. Is it intentional? Maybe reordering sentences saying one and then the other, without coming back on the first afterwards?

42: 1960-s or 1960's ?
48: to solve the fine tuning problem -> stabilize the electroweak scale?

73: very special flavor structures -> very special flavor structures, e.g. possibly sharing some of the symmetries shaping the SM yukawa interactions
(or may be inserted it after the following sentence regarding the flavor puzzle)

76: we would like to probe ? ...sounds like the option is in our hands… I'd say either drop it or split the sentence and reiterate that therefore flavor+LHC may provide a way to probe (some of) its features

85-86, 89-90: are these parenthetic comments necessary in this kind of report? (regarding the level of technicality)

around 100: maybe already put a sentence like if TeV scale NP contributions enjoys (part of) the flavor symmetries of the SM and comes into play at second order (or loop level) the "typical expected size" would be (200GeV/fewTeV)^2~few%, which is not probed yet (just to give a minimal target…)

145: maybe say explicitly why you do care about canceling (Alambda^2)^4?

147: one is charged and the other is neutral mode

149: adding back the lambda^2 so it's really Vcb?

after 159: maybe already put a sentence regarding the value of Kaon physics together with charm because of s<->c ?

206: why only experiment is needed to clarify the situation? no further lattice study or did I miss that everybody agrees now it's not lattice?

209: fix the sentence.

237-238: say where the FCNCs to protect were (Kaons)? (related to comment to line 159)

251-255: what about being less generic? Otherwise charm seems a little bit rushed…

Overall looks good. Sorry if I don't have more to comment right now…

Cheers

M

9. From Bob Tschirhart

Colleagues,

I very much appreciate your hard work in putting this draft together. It is really an impressive document. Below is a suggested modification to the concluding text that has a bit more positive spin while attempting to capture the history of successes and challenges.

Cheers,

Bob Tschirhart

“Before looking forward, it makes sense to review some history. After the SSC was cancelled in 1993, it became clear that the Energy Frontier was going to shift from the Fermilab Tevatron to the LHC at CERN. At that time, the U.S. was the leader on quark flavor-physics experiments at the Intensity Frontier. B-physics was still dominated by the CLEO experiment. The most sensitive rare K decay experiments performed to date were then underway at the Brookhaven AGS. A few years later, the asymmetric e+e- B-factories were built at SLAC and KEK, increasing the size of B meson datasets by two orders of magnitude and also opening the door to measurements of time-dependent CP asymmetries. As LHC construction continued, a number of aggressive quark-flavor initiatives were put forward in the U.S. These included the BTeV proposal which would have used the Tevatron for B-physics, the CKM proposal which would have made the first high statistics measurement of K+ -> pi+nunubar using the Fermilab Main Injector, and the RSVP proposal which included an experiment (KOPIO) to measure KL -> pi0nunbar at the Brookhaven AGS. After being toyed with for years, all of these initiative were ultimately terminated. Also, as accelerator breakthroughs capable of increasing B-factory luminosity by more than another order of magnitude were made, the opportunity to upgrade the PEP-II B-factory at SLAC was not pursued; subsequently, the proponents coalesced around what is now the Italian super-flavor factory planned to be built at the new Cabbibo lab near Rome.

Today the only kaon experiments running or under construction are in Asia or Europe. The only B-physics experiments running or under construction are in Asia or Europe. The only charm experiments running or under construction are in Asia or Europe. This would make sense if the physics opportunities provided by these experiments were second class. However, that is not the case. Indeed, the laboratory that owns the Energy Frontier is also the home of a running B-physics experiment, which has a clear upgrade path, and a rare K decay experiment which is under construction. Looking forward, it is clear in spite of this history that there is strong interest and a potentially substantial community in the U.S. for an Intensity Frontier flavor-physics program. Indeed, U.S. physicists are players in almost all the offshore experiments, but only small players. Two conclusions are obvious: U.S. participation in offshore Intensity Frontier experiments should be supported, and steps should be taken to recapture the lead that the U.S. had at the quark-

flavor Intensity Frontier until recently.

The basic motivation for this program can be described very simply. If the LHC observes new high-mass states, it will be necessary to distinguish between models proposed to explain them. This will require tighter constraints from the flavor sector, which can come from more precise experiments using strange, charm, and bottom quark systems. If the LHC does not make such discoveries, then the ability of precision flavor-physics experiments to probe mass scales far above LHC, through virtual effects, is the best hope to see signals that may point toward the next energy scale to explore. Therefore, a healthy U.S. particle physics program must include a vigorous

flavor-physics component.”

Would suggest modifying the text to be:

Before looking forward, it makes sense to review some history. In the 1990s the U.S. was the leader on both the energy frontier and in quark flavor-physics experiments at the Intensity Frontier. B-physics was still dominated by the CLEO experiment in the early 1990s. The most sensitive rare K decay experiments performed to date were then underway at the Brookhaven AGS. Later in the decade the asymmetric e+e- B-factories were built at SLAC and KEK, increasing the size of B meson datasets by two orders of magnitude and also opening the door to measurements of time-dependent CP asymmetries. This research program produced world-leading results which explicitly contributed to the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on these successes a number of new aggressive quark-flavor initiatives were put forward in the U.S. at the turn of the new millennium. These included the BTeV proposal which would have used the Tevatron for B-physics, the CKM proposal which would have made the first high statistics measurement of K+ -> pi+nunubar using the Fermilab Main Injector, and the RSVP proposal which included an experiment (KOPIO) to measure KL -> pi0nunbar at the Brookhaven AGS. After being considered in the context of flat budgets and the pursuit of a fast-start strategy for the International Linear Collider, all of these initiatives were ultimately terminated. Also, as accelerator breakthroughs capable of increasing B-factory luminosity by more than another order of magnitude were made, the opportunity to upgrade the PEP-II B-factory at SLAC was also not pursued; subsequently, the proponents coalesced around what is now the Italian super-flavor factory planned to be built at the new Cabbibo lab near Rome.

Today the only kaon experiments running or under construction are in Asia or Europe. The only B-physics experiments running or under construction are in Asia or Europe. The only charm experiments running or under construction are in Asia or Europe. This would make sense as a US strategy if there were no opportunities with domestic facilities or if the physics promise did not motivate allocation of precious U.S. resources. However, this is clearly not the case. Indeed, the laboratory that now owns the Energy Frontier is also the home of a running B-physics experiment, which has a clear upgrade path, and a rare K decay experiment which is under construction. Looking forward, based on the exciting physics opportunities both in the U.S. and offshore, there is strong interest and a potentially substantial community in the U.S. for an Intensity Frontier flavor-physics program. Indeed, U.S. physicists are players in almost all the offshore experiments, but only small players. Two conclusions are obvious: U.S. participation in offshore Intensity Frontier experiments should be supported, and steps should be taken to recapture the lead that the U.S. had at the quark- flavor Intensity Frontier until recently.

11. From Jon Rosner

Here are comments on the January 19 version of "Report of the Heavy Quarks Working Group." I would hope all the other working groups could do as well. I have my eye on the organizers of each working group as possible organizers for Snowmass 2013.

L11: "favor" => "flavor"

L25: "strangeness-changing"

L26: "led to the prediction"

L31: "flavor-changing"

L33: "percent level"

L34: "flavor"

L37: "paradigm-changing"

L42: "1960s"

L50: Use parallel syntax. Suggest "and because of additional"

L56: "information on the next energy scale to explore"

L59: delete "what"

Fig. 1.1: A sentence defining $h_d$ and $\sigma_d$ would be helpful.
I realize they are defined later (L92). Mention that any conclusive
evidence for nonzero $h_d$ would point to new physics.

L75: "box diagrams"

L87: "second-order"

L91: "parametrized" (APS usage)

L95: "[9,10]"

L125: delete commas after "difference", before "and", and after "quantitites

L128: A physics comment: $\Delta m_K$ is not purely a short-distance
effect. All one can demand is that the new physics constributions do
not overwhelm the (poorly understood) strong interaction contributions.

L130: "future;"

L137: delete comma before "which determines"

L138: "parametrizes"

L146: "centered at a certain value of $\pm|\bar \eta|$ with width
$2 \Delta \bar \eta$/"

L147: I think you mean ${\cal B}(K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu)$ here

L178: "several decay modes"

L186: give a reference for the LHCb result

L202: Text should read: "of the $B^+ \to \tau^+ \nu$ rate, which ..."
Give references for the SM prediction and for the average of the measurements. They can be found, for example, in arXiv:1201.2401.

L209: "noticed that a SUSY contribution"

L210: "many years of super-$B$-factory ..."

L225: suggest "... flavor symmetry, for example $a_{K^0 \pi^0}$
[give reference here to M. Gronau, PL B 627, 82 (2005)], will help ..."

L234: Need HFAG reference in text after "0.01 level". It should be
moved in the references from [42] to just after the present [21].

L235-240: These references (which will be [23]-[25]) need to be put in correct order.

P8, Fig. 1-2 caption, L2: will now be "(From Ref.\ [22].)"

L260: "model-independent"

L278: "exotic quantum numbers, e.g., isospins, hypercharges, or
values of $J^{PC}$ that cannot ..."

P9, Table 1.2: could use errors on "SM theory" numbers. Prefer headers
to be capitalized first word only: "SM theory", "Current expt.",
"Future experiments"

A comment on Table 1.2: Could use some augmentation of the case for
Project X. The two SD SM predictions don't mention the LD contributions
or their expected errors. One will not be able to get anywhere near the
SM transverse muon polarization.

L324: "depending (how?) on the LHC schedule." Details?

L336-7: "efficiencies ... are" or "efficiency ... is"

L391: Is it really 3000 kW? I have seen the figure 2.3 MW. Might be
useful to quote the expected power at each stage. Was Table 1.3 based
on 3 MW?

L396: "A challenge for" (delete "a")

L400: "are ideal"

L410: "bean" => "beam"

L415: Could add a sentence about sensitivity to $K^+ \to pi^+ X$ where
$X$ is an invisible scalar or pseudoscalar.

L439: delete "on" before "operational"

L441: "resulting from linear ..."

L484: "factory"

L485: "has a branching fraction"

L486: "existence"

P15, Table 1-3: Could a line be added regarding sensitivity to $A_{CP}(K^0 \pi^0)$?

L520: "Cabibbo"

L556: period at end.

L583: "LHCb"

L591: "decays. In 2011"

P18, Fig. 1-5 caption: For what process is the forward-backward asymmetry plotted? L2: space after "prediction"

L595: Quote relation of $\beta_s$ to $\phi_s$ mentioned earlier.

L609: "relative to the direction"

P19, Table 1-4: "Precision" (cap.)

Table 1-4: Entry 0.35 for phi_s is curious. Seems to contradict L596.

L628: "ability to handle"

L642: "its energy"

L658: "come from fixed target"

L674, 680: "$D_s(4010)$" => "$\psi(4010)$

L684: "lattice" (lower case)

L704: "physics"

P22, Table 1-5: the "current expt." figure for $|q/p|$ doesn't make
sense when listed with other entries in the row.

L721: "and will help to discriminate among"

L732: "quantum numbers"

L736 and many on P23: $B$ (math mode) whenever talking about $B$
mesons.

L756: "initiatives"

L759: "Cabibbo"

References: Check for consistent use of titles (omit when published),
bold face (volume numbers, not letters except for Nucl. Phys. B),
order in text, caps. ("J-PARC" in [37]), misprints ([48]), incompleteness
([62,65]), etc.

Regards,
Jon