Differenze

Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.

--- cms:cms-egm-13-001 [17/11/2014 08:38]
maselli
+++ cms:cms-egm-13-001 [17/11/2014 08:44] (versione attuale)
maselli
@@ Linea 1: / Linea 1: @@
 http://cms.cern.ch/cds/EGM-13-001
-**Commenti di Marco C
+**Commenti di Marco C**
+The paper is too long and hard to read  although its physical content is quite good
+The language is often too much "cms slang" with expressions not of general
+understanding outside CMS
+ It has still the structure of  an analysis note as it collects a list of useful and
+important informations but as a paper it should be more synthetic and coherent
+ giving to a reader the possibility to select the relevant numbers, that should be
+for example summarised at the end of each main section.
+ More emphasis should be put into linking the performance of the electron
+reconstruction and selection with the main CMS analysis papers where
+ these numbers are used to build up the systematics
+ More work is needed to make it mature to be published
+**Commenti di Stefano A**
+The Torino group would like to acknowledge the authors for this extensive and
+detailed documentation of electron reconstruction in CMS. The task was not a trivial
+one, given the complexity and the multifaceted nature of the problem and the many
+slightly different ways in which various analyses exploited the available tools for
+reconstruction, identification and selections of electrons.
+However, the reading of the CWR draft left us with a few serious concerns (Type B
+comments):
+. We are afraid the use of scientific English in this document does not quite meet
+the CMS standards required for a journal paper submission. Grammar is shaky,
+repetitions can be often avoided, symbols and quantities are not always properly
+defined and in several occasions the text is simply incomprehensible. We warmly
+suggest a careful reading of the excellent guidelines for preparing CMS publications
+available at  https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMS/Internal/PubGuidelines .
+. Connected to the above, the manuscript is very technical, which perhaps
+facilitated excessive use of CMS jargon. CMS jargon should be completely removed
+before going to FR. With this respect, the document as it stands is a very good CMS
+Analysis Note, but unacceptable for a journal publication.
+. The document is  very long. We feel there are several opportunities to make it
+more terse by avoiding repeated text and concepts. Also, the number of figures could
+be reduced either by merging several plots into one or by avoiding showing many
+flavours of the same plot (e.g. when showing efficiencies for several working
+points).
+Below we provide some suggestions. We started by providing line-by-line comments,
+but realised it was an impossible task within the given time : after a couple
+sections we marked only  the most important problems. We are sure the LE has a lot
+of useful comments and can help making this a top-quality paper.
+A curiosity : the residual trend in pt in Fig 15 left is ascribed to the fitting
+function. We believe the fitting function should bias simulation and data in the
+same way, so we are left wondering if the explanation is sound.
+Good luck for the implementation of comments and FR !
+Type A comments :
+Abstract:
+“A few 100 GeV” - A few hundreds GeV
+“cluster energy in the calorimeter” -> the word “cluster" is jargon and must be
+defined or avoided
+“combining the measured energy in the calorimeter and the measured momentum in the
+tracker” -> combining the energy measurement in the calorimeter with the momentum
+measurement in the tracker.
+“The observed distributions of relevant observables are found to be well reproduced
+through Monte Carlo simulation” -> The spectra of the observables relevant to
+electron reconstruction are well reproduced in Monte Carlo simulations, as well as
+selection and reconstruction efficiencies.
+“The data to simulation efficiency ratios …” -> We suggest to remove this convoluted
+sentence.
+“The effective energy resolution .. changes “ -> The energy resolution [you don’t
+explain what “effective” means just yet] for electrons produced in Z decays ranges
+from 1.7% to 4.5%, depending on pseudorapidity and  energy losses via bremsstrahlung
+radiation.
+Introduction:
+L27: “such as those ..” -> such as Higgs searches and properties, standard model
+precision measurements and searches for new physics.
+L30 : "the basics ..  established for”  Rephrase, suggestion: The basic principles
+of offline electron reconstruction in CMS were outlined in the PTDR (ref), and rely
+on the combination of the energy measurement performed by the Electromagnetic
+Calorimeter (ECAL) and of the momentum measurement performed by the silicon tracker.
+This strategy delivers optimal performances over a wide range of transverse momentum
+(pt).
+L32-33: consequently, remove this repetition (you already said the reconstruction
+combines E(ECAL)/p(TK))
+L34: “In this paper .. means” -> Throughout the paper,  “energy” and “momentum” are
+used to refer to the energy of the electromagnetic shower initiated by the electron
+in ECAL and track momentum measurement in the tracker, respectively, while the term
+“electron energy” is used to refer to the combined information.
+L36 There is no such thing as “the performance of the energy calibration” .
+Suggestion: ”The performance of ECAL in terms of calibration precision and
+resolution was reported in Ref , while track reconstruction is discussed in Ref 5
+L38 “were some aspects .. also discussed” : drop
+L40 “performance of the resolution” , again there is no such thing. Suggestion: “In
+this paper, electron reconstruction algorithms are described and their performance
+in terms of resolution, accuracy and identification capabilities is discussed, based
+on 19.7 fb-1 of data … "
+L44 “The  needs for electron performance ..” Electron performance cannot “need”
+anything. Rephrase. Suggestion: “The cutting-edge physics analyses foreseen by the
+CMS scientific program demand high electron reconstruction and selection efficiency,
+small misidentification probability, and high accuracy and precision of the energy
+measurement over a large pt range.“
+L46-7 “The most challenging physical process is the Higgs ..“ this is not at all
+true, as there is a plethora of low-energy decays which would be far more
+challenging.  Suggestion “A crucial and challenging physical process to study, which
+is used as a benchmark in the present report,  is the decay of the Higgs into four
+electrons or two muons and two electrons, where one of the electrons can have a pt
+as low as 5 GeV. At the other extreme, electrons with pt above ..."
+L52 “Fig 1 shows the overall “ -> “Fig 1 shows the full-range spectrum of
+uncorrected dielectron invariant-mass derived from data collected using [remove
+“relatively”] high pt dielectric triggers.
+L53 “No correction … to these data” drop, it can be replaced by using the adjective
+“uncorrected” in the sentence above. If you really want to be specific, add
+“uncorrected for efficiency” at the end of the previous sentence.
+L54 : “The drop of the spectrum” , well, it’s arguably an increase rather than a
+drop, unless you look backwards ! Suggest : “The step around 40 GeV” , or “the
+feature around 40 GeV"
+L58 : remove “in front of the calorimeter”
+L59 : “the tracker material … lead to significant emission of bremsstrahlung “ -> “
+cause significant bremsstrahlung emission along..”
+L64: Add the sentence: ” The paper is organised as follows”
+L69 : “are shown” ->  are presented
+Caption to Fig 1 : ->   “The full-range spectrum of uncorrected dielectron invariant
+mass ..” Drop “ No correction .."
+Section 2
+Line 80: the new CMS publication rules allow dropping the definition of pseudorapidity
+L80-85: very convoluted. Just say how the coordinate system is defined, and then
+that its center can be placed either in the geometrical center of the detector or in
+a primary vertex (we believe this is what you mean ?). A direction cannot be
+measured relative to a point, this is plain wrong.
+L83 : “unless specified to the contrary” -> unless otherwise specified
+L90-91 : “offering for eta<2.5 an active detection region (the acceptance) “ :
+sorry, what ?
+L101:" A consequence of the silicon tracker” -> “A consequence of the presence of
+the silicon tracker”
+L107-109: these  concepts have already been discussed in L58.
+In summary, we wonder if Section 2 could be made shorter, since it does not really
+say anything new.
+Section 3
+L143 “in a fixed time interval of less than 4 us” -> in 3.6 us
+L146-157: please rewrite this paragraph explaining properly what a trigger tower is,
+defining “cluster”, etc.
+L 158-160 : the sentence says nothing, the reader does not know what a L1 or HLT
+electron candidate is.
+L 165 “unbiased sample relative to the consider efficiency” not clear
+L167 “cluster in the ECAL that forms an invariant mass with the first electron” a
+cluster does not form an invariant mass
+L173 drop the word “dedicated”
+L177 “their results compared to evaluate the systematic uncertainties” : please
+clarify. The results from MadGraph and Powheg are compared with each other ? Which
+systematics are evaluated ?
+L184 after .. reweighting good agreement is found “ isn’t this obvious form the
+definition  of reweighing ?
+L195 “previous bunch crossings”  : previous to what ?
+Section 4
+L 197 “a track in the tracker” -> a track reconstructed in the silicon detector
+L 197  “ a cluster of energy” : we believe “cluster” was never properly defined
+L 199  “used to maximise both the performance and the similarities with the trigger
+stand-alone strategy” : this sentence is really obscure to the non-initiated
+L207 “this spread can be quite restricted”: rephrase
+L215 “along the phi direction relative to the initial direction of the electron”
+what does it mean ? Radiation is emitted along the phi direction, period.
+L217 “two super clustering algorithms” : supercluster is not defined
+L220 -249 : these paragraphs are full of jargon (“dominoes”, “seed”), undefined
+symbols (N_steps, etc),  unreported values (value of ET^min_seed e.g.)
+L266 “makes this a non optimal” -> a sub-optimal
+L267 “there is a too large of a change in curvature due” -> when the change in
+curvature is large because of bremsstrahlung
+L281 “general tracks” : please check if they were ever defined
+L290 “a subset of the seeds leads eventually to tracks “ ??
+L339 “the track stops collecting hits” : it’s hard to believe that tracks can
+“collect hits”
+L357 “a dedicated Bethe-Heitler function” : what is a dedicated Bethe-Heitler
+L399 “emit high fractions of their energies” -> rephrase
+L403 “difference in the material” -> imperfect modelling of the material budget in
+simulation
+L404 “access” -> assess
+L407 define ”service region"
+L423 “ECAL-driven seeded” : convoluted expression. BTW , we think “seeding” was
+never explained
+L433 “it is therefore not very restrictive in the direction along which … “ : puzzling
+L449 “transition region” -> boundary between EB and EE
+L463-464: try to explain better
+L483   : “felt needed for the alignment procedure” : it’s not a matter of feelings,
+please rephrase
+L536 “ observables sensitive” -> suited to identify
+L556 “ the end of the encaps” -> the highest eta endcap regions
+L581 “laser monitoring system” -> add Ref
+L611 it’s not the number that is reconstructed, but the vertices, flip the terms
+(“number of reconstructed interaction vertices”)
+L622 “CB with different parameters .. below and above the peak position” : explain
+better, the peak position is a parameter itself
+L654 “can cause the corrections” calls for the introduction of the corrections ..
+L659-660 : “The SC energy is corrected by changing …” : put in this way it is quite
+puzzling
+L675 “The resolution of a SC energy is also affected by the sources of discrepancy”
+???
+L681-682 “smeared energy simulation” , define (we believe this is not the right
+expression)
+L684 “inflated” -> increased
+L687 “after all the steps are taken” -> after the refinements explained in the
+previous sections
+L716 “must be corrected further on top of ..” please rephrase
+L726 “the breadth of performance in data”
+L744 “the resolutions are smeared in simulation” : resolutions are not smeared
+L756-757 “used ..used” .
+L759-763: unclear
+L772 “through of a method”
+L786 : “electrons produced within ..” -> originating form the decay of the b and c
+quarks
+L807 “reconstructed electrons that match generated electrons …” rephrase
+L809 “enough purity” rephrase
+L831  etc: explain why sigma_ietaieta is effective in discriminating signal from
+background electrons
+L834-835 “obtained by counting crystals” rephrase
+L852 “shape information is expanded “ ?
+L891: “significant energy flow near their trajectories” perhaps “significant
+activity” ?
+L897 : Introduce the paragraph by saying “Two techniques are employed …”
+L908-909 :  “the calibration that corresponds … used to define their contribution”
+really obscure
+L915-918 : obscure as well
+Formula: please ensure you write a sound mathematical formula
+L928: “among the most sensitive observables” -> among the observables more sensitive…
+L932  A_eff not defined
+L989-990 :  please check if d0 and dz are defined
+L994 “90,80,70%” we lost track of what the three numbers may refer to
+L1015, L1023 add Reference
+L1072 “dependence.. on the number of bins used “ ?
+L1087 : "to select  both the events and the probe “ ?
+Fig25/25 perhaps can be merged ?
+Section 7 “Summary and conclusions"
+In this section it is particularly important to avoid CMS jargon
+L1155/56 “with a single-cluster supercluster” ,  “multi-cluster supercluster” ,
+perhaps we could refer to high-brem and low-brem electrons ?
+References
+References should be uniformly presented. E.g , Ref 25 has “Vol”, “No” while others
+have not (remove Vol, No, ). Some references have start and end page, others only
+start page (remove end pages from refs 25,31,36).