Questa è una vecchia versione del documento!
http://cms.cern.ch/cds/EXO-11-073
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