http://cms.cern.ch/cds/EXO-12-002
Roberta
Commenti generali: pur essendo abbastanza in accordo con la linea di quelli gia' espressi da voi, io eviterei di proporgli la riscrittura del paper secondo una nuova logica di presentazione. Chiederei loro di aggiungere delle frasi “cappello” che aiutino il lettore a seguire le fasi descrittive dell'articolo.
Abstract: Please rewrite first sentence → too long.Make shorter one(s)
Last sentence: remove “The stringents ”
l9: remove “for current integrated luminosity”
l12: Results obtained → The obtained results
l28: pair pair…remove one
l35: to two taus and two b jets, using pp collisions * at sqrt(7) = 7 TeV, is presented. The data have been collected by the CMS experiment and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 4.8 fb-1.
l38: These requirements result in two possible final states…
l47: in the l tau_h b bbar final state, assuming beta = 1,…
l48:production in the l tau_h b bbar final state
l55 : *a* calorimetry system
l58: has extensive forward …→ ?? does not mean much… either you specify better or remove the adjective
l61: were collected …→ are collected using triggers requiring (remove “a set of”)
l88: the INVARIANT mass of ..
l91: the the …
l90-92: are you missing a verb?? not understandable
l94: from SM processes ARE …
l95-96: There ARE also small CONTRIBUTIONS from …
l100: 200 to 800 GeV.. MADGRAPH generator… hadronization and showering, has been used to model…
l114-120: are you talking about single top bkg? Remove first sentence. Add *single* in line 115
Sulle figure: stessi commenti identici di Nicolo!
Stefano C.
Type B comments
- You quote the CDF limit on the stop mass (lines 48-51) which, btw, are LOWER not UPPER limits, (see Type A comments) as the best limits before this search, excluding M_t1 < 153 GeV. Your results seem to extend the limits at 453 GeV (240 GeV) for lambda_333 = 1 (any lambda_333), as you state in lines 178-180. Since your search is done in the 200-800 GeV it's not clear to me how you are able to exclude also the 153-200 GeV range. Could you explain me what I am missing?
- Too few figures and maybe even too small (especially the one with the limits!). I suggest to add somewhere (e.g. line 8,26) some Feynman diagrams, a few control distributions somewhere.
- It can seem obvious to everyone, but I would explain what you mean by “third generation” when you talk about LQ
- Why you look for a leptonic tau and a hadronic tau?
- Why electrons are reconstructed “only” in |eta|<2.1 ? Most of the analysis I have seen they use electrons in |eta|<2.5 acceptance with the exclusion of the “crack-region”, which, btw, you don't exclude…
- The efficiency of the final selection it seems too low to me… Could you explain where you loose much of this efficiency?
Type A comments
Abstact - L 10-11: scenario→scenarios or put “a (typical)” in front of “R-parity”
Main Text - L 9: “for current integrated luminosity” makes no sense here, since the dominant production mechanisms are dominant at every integrated luminosity!
- L 18: have→having
- L 18-19: this phrase has the comma between the subject and the verb…
- L 26: as said in Type B comments: here it would be much clearer to put a diagram with the production and decay
- L 28: What do you mean by “similar”? Maybe giving 2 numbers at the benchmark points you chose it would be helpful
- L 30: processes→ diagrams, corrections. In my understanding a loop correction does not imply a different process
- L 36-38: (see also Type B) maybe it's worth explain this choice
- L 46: leptoquarks→leptoquark
- L 50: upper → lower
- L 60: CMS detector→ the CMS detector
- L 70-71: information→informations, is→are, final-state→stable
- L 80: references should go after “algorithm”
- L 82-83: “corrected by correcting”??
- L 109-110: not well explained… Is the simulation corrected before computing the efficiencies or what?
(BTW my draft here stops to count the lines for 13 lines…)
- After eq.1: you define here the missing Et but you should have done it some lines before when you first introduced it
- L 128: as are→ as
- L 130: could be → is
- L 171: bquark → b-quark
Nicolo
Type B comments
The paper is really dense, and it's fairly complicated. It's organized as one long section, and this does not really help. There is no distinction between the experimental part, the analysis, results and conclusion. It's the first time I see a paper written like this, and I wonder if this is a correct way to present results.
The paper mixes two searches (LQ and Stops) continuously and it's confusing. It should be organized as a single experimental search that can be used to set different limit.
Type A comments
The paper needs to be re-read. There are many mistakes that should not have arrived at the institutional reading.
Figures: There are 3 figures and you use 3 different conventions for the CMS 7 TeV & luminosity. Use the “integral” symbol everywhere or nowhere DO NOT use “Preliminary” It's either bold or not. Both figures too small, make it larger. Why there is the number 333 on the y axis on Fig 2 (b) If a Figure has two parts, you need to put (a) and (b).
Abstract: the first lines
You need to explain what you look for. The line:
“ events containing two tau leptons and two b tagged jets is found to be in agreement with the standard model prediction” has no connection with the first two top lines.
l28: pair pair
l55: polar angle measured with respect of the positive z-axis
l58: Muons are identified (not measured, they are measured even with the tracker)
l62: You don't write “objects” !!! this is slang due to coding,
l70: In the PF information from all subdetectors is combined to =⇒ The PF algoritms combined information from all subdetectors
l81-83: why do you use “jet energy” and “jet momentum”? are they different?
l90-91: Can you please rewrite it? it does not make any sense
l99: you quote PYTHIA 6.4 and you put a reference for 6.3 FIX IT
l106: remove [12], already cited.
l109: process→processes
l114: The top background =⇒ The background due to processes that contains a top quark….
l116: Both the yield from the simulation and the distribution of ST =⇒
Both the yield and the distribution of ST obtained from the simulation
l128: “Simulated data” is not a good name. Use “MC events”
l151-154: You should reverse the logic: the SM background prediction is in good agreement with the data, not the opposite.
Table2: caption on top diboson →Diboson
Ernesto
Type B comments
The paper is quite dense with a lot of details especially in the introduction (lines 1-33) and when discussing the assumptions used to extract limits on the stop mass (lines 163-172). This makes it an uneasy read despite its limited length. I think that it would be much easier to describe the analysis as a (model independent?) search of an excess in a final state with a particular topology (l tau_h bb) and then to interpret the results (no excess found) in terms of two different BSM hypoteses: LQ and stop. This would be even easier if a single value of the M(tau_h,b) cut (e.g. >170 GeV) were used for the search of the LQ in the whole mass range and for the stop search (l.89-90).
In that respect, is the gain in signal efficiency for the high mass hypothesis really so large to justify this complication of the analysis? Also is the “450 GeV” mass threshold relevant in the LQ search or also in the stop search?
Table 1: tt background is largely dominant (~70%) in the muon channel while it is (only) 50% in the electron channel. Is this understood, e.g. do you control the tt background separately for the electron and for the muon channel? May this explain the excess in the electron channel observed in the data?
Type A comments
$\beta$ is used in the $\tan\beta$ definition as for the LQ branching ratio. To avoid ambiguities, define the latter differently (e.g. ${\cal B}$)
I would rather use the full word “leptoquark” instead of the abbreviation “LQ” everywhere in the main text (l.6, 42, 61, 111, 159). Fine to keep “LQ” in the captions and in the table.
l.12: $\lambda$ appears only here. Everywhere else is $\lambda'$
l.21-22: do not break the sentence. Instead of “…M_t1<M_t2. Mt1 can be smaller…” write “…M_t1<M_t2 where Mt1 can be smaller…”
l.26: “a stop and an anti-stop pair” → “ a stop anti-stop pair”
l.28: “pair pair” → probably one of the two “pair” can be removed
l.34-35: add the centre of mass energy
l.42: is it common to use the “\equiv” instead of “=” for defining a variable?
l.43: “bjet” → “b jet”
l.47: “bjets” → “b jets”
l.49: mention the size of the analyzed sample for both D0 and CDF or for none of them
l.55: “and calorimetry” → “and a calorimetry”
l.57: remove “CMS also has an extensive forward calorimetry” as it is probably irrelevant for this analysis (and CMS has also many other things)
l.72: do not break the sentence “and photons. The PF candidates are used” → “and photons, and they are used” →
l.77: is it common to use the “\equiv” instead of “=” for defining a variable?
l.80: “Jets are reconstructed using PF candidates with the anti-$k_T$…”
l.85: isn't the requirement of the mu/ele-tau_h separation already embedded in what written at l.77-78?
l.87: which discriminant was used (TCHE,TCHP) and which working point?
l.88: “the mass” → “the invariant mass”
l.94: “pair production of top quarks” → “$t\bar{t}$ pair production”
l.95: “the jet” → “a jet”
l.98: “diboson processes.” → “diboson production processes.”
l.102-103: not clear why for the W is mentioned W+jets while for the Z is just Z/gamma*→ll. Probably better to call them “inclusive W production” and “inclusive Z/gamma* production” (similarly in Table 1)
l.110: “that” → “those”
l.114: specify if the “top background” is ttbar only or it includes single top
l.117-120: “Systematic uncertainties…compared” move this sentence closer to l.135 where the same numbers are repeated for the tt background
l.120+3: remove “loose”
l.120+5: are the identification and isolation criteria used for these leptons the same used in the main analysis? If not what is the effect of the difference?
l.120+12: what “fr” stands for? fake reco? Why not call this variable “P_{fr}”?
l.123: “bjets” → “b jets”
l.151: remove “criteria”
l.163: “stop production” → “stop anti-stop production”
l.171: RPV undefined; “bquark” → “b quark”
Table 1: use “e tau_h bb” and “mu tau_h bb” in the table headings consistently with the rest of the text
Figure 1: “distribution is compared” → “distribution compared”