Questa è una vecchia versione del documento!
http://cms.cern.ch/cds/JME-13-003
Stefano C.
Congratulations to the authors: the paper is well written, easy-to-read and understadable even if the topic is far from being simple. Some minor comments below
Type B
- I had sometimes the feeling that this paper has been written by many hands. This is understandable, given the size of the topic, but sometimes it results in repetitions and suboptimal connections between the paragraphs. In addition, in some paragraph there seem to be much more details with respect to others, and it is not always clear the reason. Example will be highlighted in type A comments
- All the plots have “CMS Preliminary 2012”
Type A
- Abstract: as a general comment, it is a bit too long and detailed and it may be largely improved in readability
1) there are 8 “missing transverse momentum (energy)”. I know it's hard to find a synonymous for that, but maybe not all are necessary. For instance, in line 9 of the abstract: “missing transverse momentum resolution” → “(its) resolution”
2) “Using these advanced …”: drop this sentence, since the message is already clear from the previous one
L52: X0 is not defined
L145: DeltaR is not defined and will be defined later in another paragraph (see also type A comment about this)
Figure 2: it's not clear why such a plot is important in this context. In addition, why the Data to MC ratio is not drawn here?
L163: eq 1 is a definition, not a condition! You may want to refer to the same cut applied for the muons and introduced in line n.156
L171-176: it would be clearer to first define the “working points” and then use them in the text.
L174: “quality requirements” is a bit generic (see also type A comment)
L180-181: “the standard jet identification criteria” is again too generic and “standard” has a meaning only within the collaboration. Either explain further, or use a reference where those criteria are defined, as it is done one line below for the b-tagging.
Figure 3: do you have any clue why the Data/MC ratio is so close to 1 for photon events with respect to Z→mumu or Z→ee?
L198: here you define Delta R, why it should have been defined earlier (see comment for L145)
L393-395: I do not understand this statement
Figure 7: what is “EWK” and why is i so asymmetric in u_parallel for photon+jets events?