http://cms.cern.ch/cds/EXO-11-073 Overall I think it's a well written paper, polished and wee structured. Roberta -------- L3: i would remove "however" L16: No sure about the correction L37: not so nice to see transverse momentum " Et " L44: MAGNETIC field volume L124: isolated leptons that CONSTITUTE ANOTHER source of background WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS TO WZ and ...( remove "for searches ...") L137: ***non sono daccordo col vostro commento sul conversion factor L174: the leptons in THE final STATE L178: trigger SELECTIONS, PHYSICS OBJECTS reconstruction, and Tab 2 ,3 : remove % everywhere as it is already in the column label L214: hereafter BR refers to BRANCHING RATIO FOR final states WHICH INCLUDE electrons... Nicolo ------- L3: not sure it's correct: a very week coupling to the Higgs, i.e., if they neutrinos get their mass as the other fermions in the SM, should be considered "SM ", even if esthetically we don't like it. L76: thereby defined ==> thereby defining a L90: lepton => muon L95: where does the Ht< 100 GeV cut comes from? Figure2: don't we need CMS 2011... on the pictures? L180-181: how do we get 99+-1 from an efficiency between 92 and 100 %? Table3: 7.5% ==> 7% (use the same number of precision digit as the other numbers. Figures 3,4,5 : Eliminate "preliminary" L245: They are ==> The results are ... =========================== Stefano A. ------------ Type B While it is clear how the limits on sigmaxBR are derived, It is not clear from the discussion how the limits on M_\Sigma are gotten. Type A L3 : "unambigous evidence of phenomena not foreseen" … are we really sure the phrasing is correct ? Is the fact that neutrinos have mass a "phenomenon" ? Isn't the massless neutrino an assumption in SM ? L16: please review the English. " … couplings does not" -> "couplings do not" . But also, which cross-section is not affected ? Figure 1 caption the PRODUCTION cross section for W- L56 Suggested re-phrasing : " .. while parton shower and hadronization are implemented using PYTHIA". But which partons and hadrons are we speaking about ? Underliying event ? The diagram in Fig 1 has no parton in the final state , so this is confusing. L59 Using THE CMS Fast Simulation L66 "include EVENTS WITH Drell-Yan" L67 "Drell-Yan refers to" I would remove this, or say "The Drell-Yan process consists …" L76 "HEREBY defined AS ""global muons" " (note quotes) L77 P_t not defined, please define L78 dof -> ndof L79-80 "that match a reconstructed (remove "to")" , also remove "extrapolated from the tracker" L84-85 "no rejection as candiate …" really did not understand what it means, avoid double negatives. "Three independent algorithms" ? L91 p^\mu -> p^e L107 "conversions of virtual photons" … does a "virtual photon" actually "convert" ? The conversion process usually refers to a real photon interacting with material. A virtual photon always transforms into something. Figure 2 left y-axis range cuts error bars. Why not make y axis ranges equal for the left and right figures ? L137 conversion factor not defined L152 The largest background, COMMA L152-172 I find this paragraph hard to follow L176 "Can be divided IN TWO CATEGORIES: those related" L234 can ORIGINATE Figure 4 caption: I would keep the same order of b_\mu, b_e, b_\tau across Fig 3,4,5 L246 Stray "it" Table 5 , first row 95% CL limit on M, 95% CL limit on sigmaxBR Stefano C. ----------- General comments: none Specific comments: Abstract: maybe the first 3 sentences can be merged somehow... L 2-4: L 23: Because -> Since L 25: Also, -> Also L 25-26: Why these kind of decays are not considered in the analysis? Maybe it's worth explaining L 28-29: I would dropp "for the heavy and light leptons" L 32: From "The production", I would change into "The strength of the coupling between Sigma and the lepton alpha is proportional to:" L 44-45: I would drop at least "measured" since the muon tracks are mostly "measured" in the tracker... L 61-62: I would change into: "A smaller contribution to the background comes from the diboson ZZ channel..." L 64: three EW-bosons -> three EW-boson production L 68: here you introduce the "internal" and "external" convertions, but you don't explain what they mean, you do it in par. 4-5. I suggest to re-organize the thing and make sure that immediately after any "non-trivial" term the corresponding definition is present (the same stand for asymmetric conversion in L 106). L 77: I would drop all the (i) (ii) etc. since they are not used as references L 84: I don't understand the (iii): if the rejection is not applied simply don't mention it L 85: About (iv), if it's the electric charge is checked to be consistent from the 3 algorithms I would not stress the curvature more than the charge (as you do) otherwise it's ok like this L 87: I would drop PF everywhere L 99-100: "one or two entries..." -> one or two opposite-sign/same-flavour dilepton pairs Figure 2: expand the y-axis range of left figure since there is one error bar which is not completely included in the plot. I would use different colors instead of different fill styles, much clearer L 114: here you describe once again the sources of background, maybe you can prune the background-related sentences in the other paragraphs. L 132: since, as far as I understand, there is no 4-lepton veto the last part of the sentence sounds incorrect, because it's not necessary that the "soft" lepton from the conversion is undetected in order to make this final state a background. L 209: "defined Eq." -> "defined in Eq." L 246-248: I would drop the last sentence