Differenze

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

--- cms:cms-exo-12-025 [31/03/2014 22:30]
maselli creata
+++ cms:cms-exo-12-025 [10/04/2014 16:49]
ortona
@@ Linea 1: / Linea 1: @@
 http://cms.cern.ch/cds/EXO-12-025
+--
+Nicolo'
+Dear Authors,
+Congratulations on your nice paper. It reads well, it’s clear and well written.
+There are a few points that might need your attention.
+) Title: it’s a bit puzzling, without knowing the topic, I was expecting a Lepton flavour violation paper.
+"WZ using the trilepton channel” is very misleading: the leptons are 4. Moreover you
+“WZ with 3 charged leptons in the the final state”
+) Abstract: as you don’t want taus, please write explicitly that the sum of electrons and muons is 3
+"to final states with electrons and muons. “ ==> "to final states where the sum of the number of electrons and muons is 3.”
+line 3: "into a pair of W and Z bosons"
+It’s a bit ambigus, it might mean WW or ZZ. Better would be:
+“into a W and a Z bosons”, or “into a WZ boson pair”.
+line 19: "focus on the trilepton channel” : as for the title, this sentence is  wrong, the leptons are 4. Please find a way to rephrase it expressing the concept that there are 3 = elec. + muons.
+line 26: "Only the first of these “. Not so clear what “first” refers to. As is written, it refers to:
+"Non-resonant events with no genuine Z boson in the final state”. Is this what you want?
+Line 96, 100: The use of “Object” is not appropriate. It’s a C++ slang which should not appear in a paper.
+Line 103: "at least three reconstructed leptons”: here the confusion is with taus. I guess you don’t want taus, so please state explicitly that you want at least 3 reconstructed leptons and muons.
+line 129: "These are compatible with unity for both the electron and muon channels. “
+I believe that if a correction is compatible with unity it should not be applied.  If that is the case in this case, you should remove it.
+line 189: “the two are combined” ==> "the two bosons are combined”
+line 202: The variables Lt and Mass(WZ)  look very correlated. Can you add one sentence that explains why it’s a good choice to have both?
+--
+Giacomo
+Line 5 "Also included are" -> "as well as"
+Line 10 From what I can see, the analysis is an improved version of the 7TeV one, therefore I suggest to replace "presents a search" with "presents an update of the search"
+Line 221 From the text, it looks like every group of systematics is evaluated separately and at the end you have 4 sources of uncertainty (coming from a combination of the uncertainties within each group). I suggest to replace "we combine" with "we include". Also, why do you specify "the product"?
+Line 266-273 Would it be possible to merge these 2 paragraphs? You describe twice how you compute the limits, from 2 different perspectives