Differenze
Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.
Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente | Prossima revisione Entrambe le parti successive la revisione | ||
cms:cms-exo-12-025 [10/04/2014 16:49] ortona |
cms:cms-exo-12-025 [11/04/2014 17:03] casasso |
||
---|---|---|---|
Linea 55: | Linea 55: | ||
Line 266-273 Would it be possible to merge these 2 paragraphs? You describe twice how you compute the limits, from 2 different perspectives | 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 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1) 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 guys, possibly introducing also the rho and pi TC hadrons | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2) 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 | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3) 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. It is known the improvement in the sensitivity by adding the Lt cuts | ||
+ | compared to the M(WZ) cut alone? | ||
+ | |||
+ | 4) 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"? Because 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 improve 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" ? |