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
– 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” ?