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 07:12] (versione attuale)
arcidiac
@@ Linea 47: / Linea 47: @@
+===== da roberta ===
-Dear authors, ARC, congratulations on this well-written, clear paper. Below we have some questions/comments to your attention.
+I concur with the above mentioned congratulations to the authors and ARC. Very well written and well exposed paper.
-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.
+. 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)
+. the description of the systematic uncertainties (and of the table with the signal selection efficiency systematics) could benefit from a less concise exposition.
@@ Linea 69: / Linea 65: @@
 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?
-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].
+L104  candidates in a cone ∆R  --> in a cone of radius ∆R
-  --> why it is given in this way?
-L62  At larger values of |η|, the size of the towers increases and the matching ECAL
+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)
-     arrays contain fewer crystals. ?
-L 87  corrected for zero-suppression effects   what does that mean exactly?
+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?
-L104  candidates in a cone ∆R  --> in a cone of radius
+L158  a resonance somewhat broader   --> could you avoid the qualifier "somewhat"?
-L112  The 8 TeV analysis employs the Cambridge–Aachen (CA) clustering algorithm [25],
+L183 the background rejection due to b tagging exceeds a factor -->  the background rejection in this category exceeds a factor
-      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
+L186  into the two SRs. --> in this sentence it is probably better to write without acronyms: into the two search regions.
-      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
+L138  narrow and wide resonance  --> narrow and broad resonance (please keep using "broad" when referring to the "wide" resonance)
--- 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?
+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.   --> what does that mean exactly?
+L270 The background-only fit is consistent with both 8 and 13 TeV data.   --> please rewrite it in a less concise format
-Table 2:  caption needs to be re-adjusted! description of columns looks wrong.
+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.
-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? you did not mention it before
-L290 This ratio increases --> which ratio?
 L306 in in  -> remove one in
 Figure 5  showing relative contribution of  --> showing the relative contribution