Differenze

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

--- cms:exo-11-073 [01/08/2012 23:51]
maselli creata
+++ cms:exo-11-073 [15/08/2012 14:09] (versione attuale)
cartigli
@@ Linea 1: / Linea 1: @@
 http://cms.cern.ch/cds/EXO-11-073
+Overall I think it's a well written paper, polished and wee structured.
+Roberta
+--------
+L3: i would remove "however"
+L16: No sure about the correction
+L37: not so nice to see  transverse momentum " Et "
+L44: MAGNETIC field volume
+L124: isolated leptons that CONSTITUTE ANOTHER source of background WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS TO WZ and ...( remove "for searches ...")
+L137: ***non sono daccordo col vostro commento sul conversion factor
+L174: the leptons in THE final STATE
+L178: trigger SELECTIONS, PHYSICS OBJECTS reconstruction, and
+Tab 2 ,3 : remove % everywhere as it is already in the column label
+L214: hereafter BR refers to BRANCHING RATIO FOR final states WHICH INCLUDE electrons...
+Nicolo
+-------
+L3: not sure it's correct: a very week coupling to the Higgs, i.e., if they neutrinos get their mass as the other fermions in the SM, should be considered  "SM ", even if esthetically we don't like it.
+L76: thereby defined ==> thereby defining a
+L90: lepton => muon
+L95: where does the Ht< 100 GeV cut comes from?
+Figure2: don't we need CMS 2011... on the pictures?
+L180-181: how do we get 99+-1 from an efficiency between 92 and 100 %?
+Table3: 7.5% ==> 7% (use the same number of precision digit as the other numbers.
+Figures 3,4,5 : Eliminate "preliminary"
+L245: They are ==> The results are ...
+===========================
+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
+% 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