Differenze
Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.
| Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente | |||
|
cms:b2g-12-015 [01/10/2013 11:48] casasso |
cms:b2g-12-015 [01/10/2013 14:35] (versione attuale) ortona |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linea 63: | Linea 63: | ||
| - if it is essential, remove the "Scenario" column, since it is useless and there is no other mention on "scenarios" through the text | - if it is essential, remove the "Scenario" column, since it is useless and there is no other mention on "scenarios" through the text | ||
| + | |||
| + | --------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| + | Giacomo | ||
| + | |||
| + | Type B | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article presents some new stringent limits on the existence of T, and for the first time this includes all the final states. This is of clear interest for all B2G searches. The physics message is clear and well presented. | ||
| + | The article is well written and it's of easy understanding even to people not expert of the argument, and I think it just need some minor improvements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would put some more emphasis on the fact that this is the first such measurement performed that does not depend on assumptions on the final states branching fractions. A sentence underlying this fact can be easily added to both the abstract and the introduction without altering too much the paper flow. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would also consider to expand a bit the conclusions, as they are now they are very short. Maybe you can add a sentence about the fact that no excess is visible in the data. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Type A | ||
| + | |||
| + | Abstract: | ||
| + | |||
| + | The last sentence "Limits between [...] states" can be easily misunderstood. As it is written now it seems that the exclusion region goes from 687 to 782 GeV. Please rephrase it into something like "A lower limit of 687 is set for all the possible final states branching fractions. Depending on the branching fraction, more stringent lower limits can be set up to 782 GeV" (or just re-use the sentence in the conclusion, which is clearer) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Introduction: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lines 3-7 Some theoretical references are needed | ||
| + | |||
| + | Line 7: remove ", for example," | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lines 10-13: Are there consequences from these assumptions? Is there any reference you can quote that can justify them and proves they do not severely affect the analysis? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Line 16: Add "of the cross-section" after " ... order calculation" | ||
| + | |||
| + | Line 20: Please consider rephrasing this sentence, and possibly avoid the "democratic" adjective | ||
| + | |||
| + | Line 23: "signal independentLY" | ||
| + | |||
| + | Event Samples: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Line 69: CTEQ6ML does not have any reference | ||
| + | |||
| + | Event Reconstruction: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Line 98: "differ only by a few percent from 1", please put the actual numbers | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lines 115-117: You can consider to drop the part "it can also [...] has smaller pt" to make the text smoother | ||
| + | |||
| + | Multilepton channel: | ||
| + | |||
| + | This section needs some re-organization of the text. As it is now it is a bit confusing, you start saying there are 4 categories, then say that there are 2 di-l (OS, SS) and tri-l and then after a while you say that there are actually 2 OS.I would list all the categories first (OS1, OS2, SS, tri-lepton) and then discuss them separately. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Limit computation and systematic uncertainties: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Are you using the CLs method for the limit? If so please specify this somewhere and put a reference. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Figure 6: Why did you decide to quote sigma instead of sigma/sigma_95%, that is a more common way to present limits? (If it is a standard way to present B2G results please ignore this comment) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Figure 6: Can you make this figure bigger? | ||