Differenze

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

--- cms:exo-16-025 [04/11/2016 06:30]
arcidiac
+++ cms:exo-16-025 [04/11/2016 07:08]
arcidiac
@@ Linea 48: / Linea 48: @@
-Dear authors, ARC, congratulations on this well-written, clear paper. Below we have some questions/comments to your attention.
-Best wishes for a speedy publication.
-The Torino group
-=== da roberta ===
-I concur with the above mentioned congratulations to the authors and ARC. Very well written and well exposed paper.
-Type B comments
-----------------
-.  it is not clear how b-tagging, the uncertainty on efficiency of which is up to 60%, can increase the sensitivity by 50%. Can you explain ? Table 2 is very important, but not very clear in understanding the origin and effect of the uncertainties.
-Type A comments
------------------
-L 58 nonisolated particles   -->  non-isolated particles
-The silicon tracker measures charged particles within the pseudorapidity range |η| < 2.5. For nonisolated particles of 1 < pT < 10 GeV and |η| < 1.4, the track resolutions are typically 1.5% in pT and 25–90 (45–150) μm in the transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter [20].
-  --> why it is given in this way?
-L62  At larger values of |η|, the size of the towers increases and the matching ECAL
-     arrays contain fewer crystals. ?
-L 87  corrected for zero-suppression effects   what does that mean exactly?
-L104  candidates in a cone ∆R  --> in a cone of radius
-L112  The 8 TeV analysis employs the Cambridge–Aachen (CA) clustering algorithm [25],
-      while the 13 TeV analysis uses the anti-kt algorithm [26],
-      --> what are the main reasons/pros or cons for one or another choice?
-L118 The requirement on jet η allows to further suppress the background from γ+jets
-      and QCD multijet events   --> not 100% clear, further suppress wrt what?
-L132 pruned jets are split into two subjets by reversing the final iteration in the jet clustering algorithm
--- subjects?  sub-jets?
-L158  a resonance somewhat broader   --> can one avoid "somewhat"?
-L164-169  one would like to know maybe what you would expect to gain in 2015 with the different (more uptodate ?) choice of MC generators.
-L183 the background rejection due to b tagging exceeds a factor of 100 -->  the background rejection in this category exceeds ..
-L186  into the two SRs. --> in this sentence it is probably better to say it without acronyms?  into the two search regions.
-L138  narrow and wide resonance  --> narrow and broad resonance
-      please keep using "broad"
-L241  remove wide, not really needed, it is clear that you are discussing this case
-L249 Most of the uncertainties affect the overall signal efficiency, and only the b tagging efficiency uncertainty can result in signal category migration.   --> is one worst than the other? is one going to affect more the result on the search?
-L270 The background-only fit is consistent with both 8 and 13 TeV data.   --> what does that mean exactly?
-Table 2:  caption needs to be re-adjusted! description of columns looks wrong.
-L280 The expected and observed limits for spin-0 resonances --> please specify (again) on what are those limits intended to be  (on the production cross)  - same comment is valid for the Table 3 caption.  expected means?
-L290 This ratio increases --> which ratio?
-L306 in in  -> remove one in
-Figure 5  showing relative contribution of  --> showing the relative contribution