Stefano A.

---

Type B

While it is clear how the limits on sigmaxBR are derived, It is not clear from the discussion how the limits on M_\Sigma are gotten.

Type A

L3 : “unambigous evidence of phenomena not foreseen” … are we really sure the phrasing is correct ? Is the fact that neutrinos have mass a “phenomenon” ? Isn't the massless neutrino an assumption in SM ?

L16: please review the English. “ … couplings does not” → “couplings do not” . But also, which cross-section is not affected ?

Figure 1 caption the PRODUCTION cross section for W-

L56 Suggested re-phrasing : “ .. while parton shower and hadronization are implemented using PYTHIA”. But which partons and hadrons are we speaking about ? Underliying event ? The diagram in Fig 1 has no parton in the final state , so this is confusing.

L59 Using THE CMS Fast Simulation

L66 “include EVENTS WITH Drell-Yan”

L67 “Drell-Yan refers to” I would remove this, or say “The Drell-Yan process consists …”

L76 “HEREBY defined AS ”“global muons” “ (note quotes)

L77 P_t not defined, please define

L78

dof → ndof

L79-80 “that match a reconstructed (remove “to”)” , also remove “extrapolated from the tracker”

L84-85 “no rejection as candiate …” really did not understand what it means, avoid double negatives. “Three independent algorithms” ?

L91 p^\mu → p^e

L107 “conversions of virtual photons” … does a “virtual photon” actually “convert” ? The conversion process usually refers to a real photon interacting with material. A virtual photon always transforms into something.

Figure 2 left y-axis range cuts error bars. Why not make y axis ranges equal for the left and right figures ?

L137 conversion factor not defined

L152 The largest background, COMMA

L152-172 I find this paragraph hard to follow

L176 “Can be divided IN TWO CATEGORIES: those related”

L234 can ORIGINATE

Figure 4 caption: I would keep the same order of b_\mu, b_e, b_\tau across Fig 3,4,5

L246 Stray “it”

Table 5 , first row 95% CL limit on M, 95% CL limit on sigmaxBR

Stefano C.

---

General comments: none

Specific comments: Abstract: maybe the first 3 sentences can be merged somehow…

L 2-4:

L 23: Because → Since

L 25: Also, → Also

L 25-26: Why these kind of decays are not considered in the analysis? Maybe it's worth explaining

L 28-29: I would dropp “for the heavy and light leptons”

L 32: From “The production”, I would change into “The strength of the coupling between Sigma and the lepton alpha is proportional to:”

L 44-45: I would drop at least “measured” since the muon tracks are mostly “measured” in the tracker…

L 61-62: I would change into: “A smaller contribution to the background comes from the diboson ZZ channel…”

L 64: three EW-bosons → three EW-boson production

L 68: here you introduce the “internal” and “external” convertions, but you don't explain what they mean, you do it in par. 4-5. I suggest to re-organize the thing and make sure that immediately after any “non-trivial” term the corresponding definition is present (the same stand for asymmetric conversion in L 106).

L 77: I would drop all the (i) (ii) etc. since they are not used as references

L 84: I don't understand the (iii): if the rejection is not applied simply don't mention it

L 85: About (iv), if it's the electric charge is checked to be consistent from the 3 algorithms I would not stress the curvature more than the charge (as you do) otherwise it's ok like this

L 87: I would drop PF everywhere

L 99-100: “one or two entries…” → one or two opposite-sign/same-flavour dilepton pairs

Figure 2: expand the y-axis range of left figure since there is one error bar which is not completely included in the plot. I would use different colors instead of different fill styles, much clearer

L 114: here you describe once again the sources of background, maybe you can prune the background-related sentences in the other paragraphs.

L 132: since, as far as I understand, there is no 4-lepton veto the last part of the sentence sounds incorrect, because it's not necessary that the “soft” lepton from the conversion is undetected in order to make this final state a background.

L 209: “defined Eq.” → “defined in Eq.”

L 246-248: I would drop the last sentence