Questa è una vecchia versione del documento!
http://cms.cern.ch/cds/EXO-11-009
Stefano C.
L 22/24: I would have put the reference [6] in line 22 after LLIM instead of in line 24, since the former is the first time the model is introduced.
L 28-29: Not a clear construction of the phrase: at least add “and the pseudorapidity is defined as …”
Fig 2a/2b: I cannot see much difference between constructive and destructive: is it really needed to plot both spectra?
L 77: Here the pT cut on the muons is >45 GeV while on line 31 was >40 GeV. Anyway it is sufficient to specify the cut once, better in the “dimuon selection criteria” paragraph.
L 84/85: Is this a standard cut for rejecting cosmics? I never heard about it… If not, I would specify in more details the reason for this cut (I suppose that the cosmic muon is reconstructed as two opposite charged back-to-back muons, but maybe it is not so obvious for the reader).
Table 1 (caption): “Description of event samples with detector simulation”: why so contorted? The classical “Monte Carlo samples” is old-fashioned?
Table 1 (caption) again: I don't like the choice of putting the mass cut in the name of the generator, I find it misleading… What about adding a column??
L 102-105: Q1) This sounds not so clear to me. Reading “Some of the reconstructed events have generated mass below M_low due to the mass resolution” one may think that the there are events that don't go in the denominator of AxM but go in the numerator, hence AxM>1, but from fig.4 it's the contrary. Am I missing something?
Q2) Is there any matching between generated leptons and reconstructed leptons in this procedure?
Q3) In the numerator the events are reconstructed with the full selection while in the denominator only the mass cut is applied? This would justify the “acceptance” part in the name… Or is it only a pure mass acceptance term?
L 114: I would have put “, i.e. multimple p-p…” instead of “:”
Fig. 5: is it really needed?
L 139-141: This sentence doesn't contribute so much…
L 147-150: Maybe I'm wrong but there should be some statistical procedure that allows to put limits taking into account possible negative fluctuations of the background… Am I wrong? If not, maybe it is worth trying them, especially because in these kind of analysis the signal region is always so poorly populated that this fluctuations are very likely…
L 193: I don't like the beginning of the phrase…