Differenze

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

--- cms:exo-10-026 [27/02/2011 00:38]
cartigli
+++ cms:exo-10-026 [15/03/2011 16:11] (versione attuale)
migliore
@@ Linea 8: / Linea 8: @@
 The paper is well organized, short and well focused.  We have two general comments:
-) However we do not agree with the separation of this paper from  the similar public PAS EXO-10-19.  The two analyses combined would show a much more organic effort. We suggest the inclusion in this paper of the results of EXO-10-19.
+)  We do not agree with the separation of this paper from  the similar public PAS EXO-10-19 ( for example Tab 1 is the same in both papers).  The two analyses combined would show a much more organic effort. We suggest the inclusion in this paper of the results of EXO-10-19.
 ) Quite often the explanations are so dense that they are difficult to follow.
@@ Linea 18: / Linea 17: @@
 l.15: (EM) is the "diphoton" the only "diboson" final state allowed? if other final states like ZZ are possible, you should specify why they are suppressed, similarly to what is written for fermionic final states.
-l.15-25 (NC): The reader might wonder why D0 has done the 2-jet and dielectron analyses and we did not. We should explain the status/reason for not having done it.
+l.15-25 (NC+NP): The reader might wonder why D0 has done the 2-jet and dielectron analyses and we did not. We should explain the status/reason for not having done it.
 l.25: (EM) all the "scales" in the paper are in GeV/c^2 apart this where they are in TeV
 eqs.1, 2, 3: (EM) are these equations really needed? Naively one can interpret them as a toolbox to convert limits on M_S between the different models, but this seems to be not the case if one looks at the values in Table 3, e.g. M_S(GRW) != (pi/2)^(1/4) M_S(Hewett)
@@ Linea 28: / Linea 25: @@
 l.48-49: (EM) why the threshold of the double-photon trigger is larger than that of the single-photon trigger?  If the single-photon is prescaled, you should mention it.
 l.53 (NC): The eta-cut value of 1.4442 is peculiar. What is our resolution in eta? DO we really know eta to the 4th decimal point?
+(NP):Since this value is due to the exclusion of the 2 outermost ECAL barrel rings, has to be mentioned?
+l.60-73 (NC):  this list is hard to follow. Why not separate the points (i),(ii),(iii) using also new lines?
-l.60-73 (NC):  this list is hard to follow. Why not separate the points (i),(ii),(iii) using also new lines?
+(NP): ideally one would like to read that isolation criteria are applied both to charghed tracks and to e.m. and hadronic energy depositions within defined DeltaR acceptances around the photon directions
 l.65-66: (EM) specify if the "rectangular strip" is centered around the direction of the photon candidate
-l.74-82: (EM) difficult to follow what it was done. Also about the optimal choice for |eta|, we found the tone of the explanation too confidential. Perhaps just say that you choose the barrel/endcap boundary and this was driving the M(gamma-gamma)>500 GeV choice. Furthermore in the rest of the paper it is not clear how the intermediate region is used.
+l.74-82: (EM+ NP) difficult to follow what it was done. Also about the optimal choice for |eta|, we found the tone of the explanation too confidential. Perhaps just say that you choose the barrel/endcap boundary and this was driving the M(gamma-gamma)>500 GeV choice. Furthermore in the rest of the paper it is not clear how the intermediate region is used.
 l.77-79 (NC): "We alternate between..." it does not sound very good. Just quote the result.
@@ Linea 42: / Linea 43: @@
 l.83-84: (NC+EM) This explanation is really too short, and you end with a  scale factor compatible with one. why is it needed? Just quote that you have checked with Z->ee the MC prediction
+l.83-84: (NP) Comparing to EGM-10-006 the efficiency was computed on the data Zee sample and than corrected by the same factor
+for the difference e/gamma.
-l.85-87 (NC):  The K-factor choice needs a longer explanation. It's difficult is a reader has to go to a reference to figure-out this choice. Flat in pt?
+l.89-97 (NC):  The K-factor choice needs a longer explanation. It's difficult is a reader has to go to a reference to figure-out this choice. Flat in pt?
 l.103: (EM) remove "," after sample
 l.105: (EM) "orthogonal to each other" -> "independent"
+l.118: (NP) why the error on K factor is 0.3 here and 0.1 in l.96?
 l.125, 137, 173: (EM) GeV->GeV/c^2
@@ Linea 69: / Linea 74: @@
 Fig. 3 caption: n =>n_ED (to be consistent).
+l.152: panel
 l.154: (EM) 1/M_S^4 (n=2,95%)=0.078 TeV^-4 -> 1/M_S^4=0.078 TeV^-4 95% CL with n_ED=2
@@ Linea 88: / Linea 95: @@
 EM: Ernesto
 NC: Nicolo
+NP: Nadia
+=== Answers to the comments to draft1 ===
+https://hypernews.cern.ch/HyperNews/CMS/get/EXO-10-026/37.html
+=== Draft 2 ===
+[[http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1335448|Entry on CERN Document Server for Draft 2]]