Differenze

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

Link a questa pagina di confronto

Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente
Prossima revisione 		Revisione precedente
cms:exo-16-025 [04/11/2016 06:02]
arcidiac 		cms:exo-16-025 [04/11/2016 07:12] (versione attuale)
arcidiac
Linea 46: Linea 46:
 Table 2 : In this form, the table is quite confusing. It is not clear if the "​magnitude"​ column is the relative uncertainty on sigma x BR or on the quantity indicated by the last column. In the first case, I would remove the last column. For the label of the second column "​Magnitude"​ is best described as "​relative uncertainty"​ . In the caption: " the second column, the third column indicates " -> there is an offset in the column count, "​Source"​ is the first column, therefore "​Affected quantity"​ is the fourth, not the third, and "​Effect on yield" is the third, not the second. Table 2 : In this form, the table is quite confusing. It is not clear if the "​magnitude"​ column is the relative uncertainty on sigma x BR or on the quantity indicated by the last column. In the first case, I would remove the last column. For the label of the second column "​Magnitude"​ is best described as "​relative uncertainty"​ . In the caption: " the second column, the third column indicates " -> there is an offset in the column count, "​Source"​ is the first column, therefore "​Affected quantity"​ is the fourth, not the third, and "​Effect on yield" is the third, not the second.
  
-==== end Stefano ​=======+ 
 +===== da roberta ​=== 
 + 
 +I concur with the above mentioned congratulations to the authors and ARC. Very well written and well exposed paper.  
  
 Type B comments Type B comments
-In the discussion ​of systematic uncertainties, 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. +---------------- 
 + 
 +1. in the background modelling section you mention that " any possible systematic bias from the choice ​of the functional form is small compared to the statistical uncertainty of the fit" but you never mentioned quantitatively the magnitude (or range of magnitude) of such statistical uncertainty (can only be seen from the plots)  
 + 
 +2. the description of the systematic uncertainties ​(and of the table with the signal selection efficiency systematics) could benefit from a less concise exposition. 
 + 
 + 
 +Type A comments 
 +----------------- 
 + 
 +L 58 nonisolated particles ​  ​--> ​ non-isolated particles 
 + 
 +L 82/87 corrected for zero-suppression effects ​ --> why is this one correction mentioned above the many others that are applied to ECAL and HCAL energy deposits? ​  
 + 
 +L104  candidates in a cone ∆R  ​--> in a cone of radius ∆R  
 + 
 +L112  The 8 TeV analysis employs the Cambridge–Aachen (CA) clustering algorithm [25], while the 13 TeV analysis uses the anti-kt algorithm --> what are the main reasons/​pros for the two choices? (once such a difference ​is pointed out in a text, the reader would like to know why) 
 + 
 +L118 The requirement on jet "​eta"​ allows to further suppress the background from γ+jets and QCD multijet events ​  ​-->​ not 100% clear, further suppress with respect to  what? 
 + 
 +L158  a resonance somewhat broader ​  ​-->​ could you avoid the qualifier "​somewhat"​? 
 + 
 +L183 the background rejection due to b tagging exceeds a factor --> ​ the background rejection in this category exceeds a factor  
 + 
 +L186  into the two SRs. --> in this sentence it is probably better to write without acronyms: into the two search regions. 
 + 
 +L138  narrow and wide resonance ​ --> narrow and broad resonance (please keep using "​broad"​ when referring to the "​wide"​ resonance) 
 + 
 +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? 
 + 
 +L270 The background-only fit is consistent with both 8 and 13 TeV data.   ​-->​ please rewrite it in a less concise format 
 + 
 +Table 2:  the caption needs to be re-adjusted,​ the 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.  
 + 
 +L290 This ratio increases --> which ratio? you did not mention it before 
 + 
 +L306 in in  -> remove one in 
 + 
 +Figure 5  showing relative contribution of  --> showing the relative contribution 
 + 
 + 
 +