Differenze

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

--- cms:cms-exo-12-025 [10/04/2014 16:47]
ortona
+++ cms:cms-exo-12-025 [11/04/2014 18:04]
casasso
@@ Linea 1: / Linea 1: @@
 http://cms.cern.ch/cds/EXO-12-025
-=========
+--
 Nicolo'
@@ Linea 46: / Linea 45: @@
 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
@@ Linea 55: / Linea 53: @@
 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
+--
+Stefano C.
+- General comments
+) The introduction lacks of details about the models tested: the reader may want to have a bit deeper insight on the production
+mechanisms of this heavy guy, possibly introducing also the rho and pi TC hadrons
+) In general the paper is well written and clear apart from the chapter 4: it has several repetitions and the organization is sub-optimal, especially in the description of the objects (see also text comments). The section on the optimization of M(WZ) and LT cuts has too many details and will probably benefit from a plot with the interpolation of the cuts
+) The Lt variable, used for the optimization of the discrimination against background, does not seem (at least looking at fig. 1)
+to give much more information with respect to the M(WZ) cut. Is it known the improvement in the sensitivity by adding the Lt cuts
+compared to the M(WZ) cut alone?
+) It's not 100% clear to me the assumptions that go into fig. 4 result: is the W'ZW coupling affecting only the BR(W'->WZ)?
+If so, fig. 4 does not add much information to fig. 2 but rather it is the explicit model dependent interpretation of the limits in the EGC model
+- Text comments
+L 86: ".. which produce different physics, but lead to ..." -> "leading to"
+L 101: remove "full"
+L 117: define "standalone muon", which is CMS jargon
+L 127-129: in one line there are 3 "simulated". Consider to use instead "data-to-MC" or some other synonyms
+L 123-124 & 127-128: consider merging these two sentences, since the information is the same
+L 129: You mean "close to unity"? If they were really compatible with unity within the uncertainty it would make no sense to apply them
+L 155: define Delta(pT)
+L 144: "overlapping" -> "additional"
+L 162-163: Clearly this is something that improves the signal efficiency, but what about the overall sensitivity? In principle also the background efficiency improves...
+L 163-164: consider merging this sentence with 127-128
+L 210-211 & 215: is it really needed to explicitely quote the empirical interpolation in the main body?
+L 214: what is a "linear turn-on curve"?
+L 230-241: many repetitions of "we apply"
+Table 1: too many lines and the efficiency does not have units (I assume they are in %)
+L 238-241: These statements sounds obscure to me
+L 246: "same analysis phase space" -> "same phase space of the analysis" ?