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 | Revisione precedente | ||
|
cms:cms-top-13-010 [11/06/2014 09:32] ortona |
cms:cms-top-13-010 [12/06/2014 09:12] (versione attuale) mcosta |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linea 190: | Linea 190: | ||
| l.166 You already quoted the predicted value. You can remove it from here. | l.166 You already quoted the predicted value. You can remove it from here. | ||
| - | 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] | ||
| Type B | Type B | ||
| Linea 199: | Linea 198: | ||
| 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 | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||