Questa è una vecchia versione del documento!
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.
1) 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”
2) 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