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…
Michele:
Very interesting analysis and very clear and convincing paper, nicely written. Congratulations to Authors and ARC.
Type B comments
o) l 31 Just to be sure: are these the only cuts applied for Fig 2 ?
o) l 108 'that are simulated in the detector' – I am lost. From the initial part of the sentence I think I understand that the sample of generated events is now different (CI/DY as opposed to DY). But I am confused by this last part – are these events generated only inside the detector acceptance ? if not (ie generated over the full phase space), I would suggest removing this last part of the sentence.
o) l 123-125 A naive question from a non-expert: why is Pythia used and then a k-factor is determined by comparting to MC@NLO ? why not use MC@NLO directly ?
o) l 127-129 Is the same k-factor used for DY and other processes ? I am not sure about the meaning of this sentence.
o) Figs 2 and 6 the various lines are difficult to distinguish in black and white (but I am not sure what to suggest)
Type A comments
o) l 5 comma after Lambda
o) l 6-7 For parton interaction etc – please consider the following rephrasing:
For values of the parton-parton centre-of-mass energy shat much smaller than Lambda, the metacolor force will…
o) l 12 with eta values –> with the eta values
o) l 13 Lower limits –> Conventionally/Traditionally, lower limits…
o) Figure 1, caption: Strictly speaking the figure shows more than just the 'interference'. How about, for instance:
Schematic representation of the total DY and CI cross section.
o) l 17 described as –> written as
o) l 22 comma before 'which'
o) l 25 initial-state quarks [hyphen]
o) l 27 please consider the following slight rewording:
In this section, the basic features of the LLIM dimuon mass spectra…are demonstrated by using generator-level PYTHIA [ref to pythia] samples (see Sect. 4) with appropriate kinematic cuts.
o) l 34 illustrate that –> illustrate the fact that
o) l 37 so that –> that
o) l 43 constructive and destructive cross sections –> constructive- and destructive-interference cross sections [this is jargon I find.]
o) Fig 2
Caption: Values –> Yields
toward pure DY –> to that of pure DY
o) l 71 using full –> using the full
o) l 77 cosmic-ray background [hyphen]
o) l 84 cosmic-ray muons [hyphen]
o) l 84-5 3-dimensional angle –> angle ? [it is a normal 2d angle in the plane that contains the two muons – or do I miss something ?]
o) l 94-5 The predicted number of CI/DY events –> The predicted number of observable CI/DY events ?
o) l 114 pileup is mentioned here for the first time, amd should perhaps be written in quotes.
o) l 122-125 I think CMS has a preference for impersonal, passive sentences (we determine a …factor –> a… factor is determined) [possibly also elsewhere]
o) l 132 are given –> are also given
o) l 137-9 The non-zero backgrounds are ttbar,…, and Z –> tautau. –> The non-zero backgrounds are ttbar,…, and Z –> tautau production.
o) l 130 'QCD background' is jargon – perhaps we should specify more explicitly which processes we mean ?
o) l 158 greater than – in words
o) l 169 limit-setting procedure [hyphen]
o) l 170 integrated luminosity –> the integrated luminosity
o) l 172-3
The uncertainty in signal and background is dominated by the effect of PDF variations which are evaluated using the PDF4LHC procedure [35]. –> The uncertainty in signal and background is dominated by the effect of the PDF uncertainties, evaluated with the PDF4LHC procedure [35].
o) l 174 + or - –> positive or negative
The PDF variation –> The PDF uncertainty
o) l 185 …the individual…the limit
o) l 186 for an explicit change in each uncertainty, or central value to which it corresponds. –> for a given change in each uncertainty, or central value.
o) l 188 and 190 constructive limit –> constructive-interference limit
o) l 196 standard-model sources [hyphen]
o) l 201 improvements on the current published values of 4.5 TeV and 4.9 TeV. – please consider repeating the relevant references at the end of the sentence