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:exo-10-026 [28/02/2011 15:13] pastrone |
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: | The paper is well organized, short and well focused. We have two general comments: | ||
- | 1) 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. | + | 1) 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. |
2) Quite often the explanations are so dense that they are difficult to follow. | 2) Quite often the explanations are so dense that they are difficult to follow. | ||
- | |||
Linea 26: | 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.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? | + | 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? | + | (NP):Since this value is due to the exclusion of the 2 outermost ECAL barrel rings, has to be mentioned? |
- | (NP): ideally one would liek 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.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.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. | l.77-79 (NC): "We alternate between..." it does not sound very good. Just quote the result. | ||
Linea 43: | 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: (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.103: (EM) remove "," after sample | ||
l.105: (EM) "orthogonal to each other" -> "independent" | 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 | l.125, 137, 173: (EM) GeV->GeV/c^2 | ||
Linea 70: | Linea 74: | ||
Fig. 3 caption: n =>n_ED (to be consistent). | 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 | 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 89: | Linea 95: | ||
EM: Ernesto | EM: Ernesto | ||
NC: Nicolo | 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]] |