Differenze

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

Link a questa pagina di confronto

Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente
Prossima revisione 		Revisione precedente
cms:cms-top-13-010 [10/06/2014 18:02]
musich 		cms:cms-top-13-010 [12/06/2014 09:12] (versione attuale)
mcosta
Linea 139: Linea 139:
  
 L 137-139: both these sentences sound obscure to me L 137-139: both these sentences sound obscure to me
 +
 +
  
  
 Marco M. Marco M.
 +
 +General comment: ​
 +
 +Overall I find the article difficult to read, mainly for the presence of many sequences of short sentences, sometimes poorly logically linked one from another
  
 From the title one would expect the main result of the paper is the absolute cross-section for the process pp->​tt+bb. The abstract instead starts from the ratio. Since the relevant quantity for the search of pp->ttH is the absolute cross-section we would recommend to invert the order in which the results are presented. From the title one would expect the main result of the paper is the absolute cross-section for the process pp->​tt+bb. The abstract instead starts from the ratio. Since the relevant quantity for the search of pp->ttH is the absolute cross-section we would recommend to invert the order in which the results are presented.
Linea 147: Linea 153:
  
 L 52: hard (-> high transverse momentum?) L 52: hard (-> high transverse momentum?)
 +
 L 57: in -> among L 57: in -> among
 +
 L 83: (nominal) mass of the Z boson L 83: (nominal) mass of the Z boson
 +
 L 92: one should explain why the choice of a unity scale factor for charmed jets. L 92: one should explain why the choice of a unity scale factor for charmed jets.
 +
 +L 93-94: repeat the same concept as in L 122-128.
 +
 +Table 1: it is not clear how undecayed top outside the acceptance can contribute to the raw event count within the acceptance (tt others class)
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +Giacomo
 +
 +Type A
 +
 +l.49 Is [14] the only theoretical work exploring the subject? You were referring to [8-14] early on. I would avoid quoting just one work out of many. Moreover it's probably unnecessary to quote anything at this point
 +
 +l.58-l63 Are the categories mutually exclusive? If not, do overlapping eventw exist? If yes, where do you put (for example) a "​ttccLF"​ event?
 +
 +l.62-l.63 dominantly->​ dominant. I don't understand these 2 lines. From where do the merging jets come from, and why should this merging make this contribution dominant? In general, I think this paragraph can use some rewording.
 +
 +l.91 The scale factors -> Data/MC scale factors
 +
 +l.100-l.101 From After to decay: this sentence does not make much sense as it is. I suppose you mean that 97% of the selected events contains 2 b quarks, but you will need to rephrase this sentence.
 +
 +Table 1 It would be nice to put a line with the expected ttH contribution in the different channels, as you quote 12 ttH event in total
 +
 +l.104-l.113 This section should be meoved after line 116.
 +
 +l.164 Table 2 contains all the cross sections. You may want to move this sentence at the bottom of the paragraph and say that all the values are reported in table 2 or something similar
 +
 +l.166 You already quoted the predicted value. You can remove it from here.
 +
 +
 +Type B
 +
 +Abstract:
 +It's not clear what the main measurement is about. The title states that the paper is about ttbb xsection, but the abstract suggest it is about the ratio of ttbb and ttjj xsection, with the 2 xsections measurement as a side results. I would suggest the abstract needs rewording.
 +
 +I think it's missing some (even brief) discussion about what uncertainties are introduced when correcting for acceptance, and which ones get modified when modifyng the jet pt threshold. A few lines explaining how systematics are affected can be helpful
 +
 +General remark: From the paper, it seems that reference [14] is the only relevant theoretical piece on the argument. Nor in the motivations nor in the results any other paper is cited. Is this the case? Moreover, this single paper (that is not even yet published) is referenced to at least 6 times in the body of the text. I would suggest to include more theoretical references (if they exist) and to remove some of the redundant references to [14]. As a side note, in the reference one of the authors is missing (Bevilacqua)
 +
 +
 +Marco C.
 +
 +As a general remark the paper, although quite complete and of descent quality, ​ looks more like a list of different items and does not keep the reader focused on one single subject at the time. 
 +Indeed the paper presents different subjects with results both on absolute ttbb, ttjj cross-section determination and their ratio
 +but it mixes them together rather than differentiate what is relevant for future ttH and what is relevant now for MC comparison.
 +(in the abstract, in the body of the paper, in the conclusions)
 +More specific the perspective of a measurement of ttH production is linked only qualitatively to the actual measurement of ttbb cross-section,​ and no quantitative arguments are given  to link the actual precision reached at CMS for ttbb with a sensitivity in the potential observation of ttH.
 +Even the language with many  short sentences more than a wider reasoning,I found difficult to follow.
 +I would suggest to show few plots to illustrate the analysis cut, to demonstrate that the analysis is solid and to facilitate the understanding of the reading
 +Globally I found the paper a good draft but it still needs a wider review.
  
  
  
 +