Differenze

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

--- cms:fsq-17-001 [11/01/2018 18:20]
migliore
+++ cms:fsq-17-001 [12/01/2018 10:13] (versione attuale)
migliore
@@ Linea 10: / Linea 10: @@
 Abstract (l.11) "differential cross sections" -> "differential cross section measured"
+l.67: "...photon-induced events, while HIJING, KATIE..." -> "...photon-induced events. HIJING, KATIE..."
 l.155: "jets are clustered from stable particles": it sounds a bit like jargon and it refers to MC only
@@ Linea 23: / Linea 25: @@
 l.227: "linear approach" -> "approach including gluon saturation"
-Type B
+Type B (Everything else)
+l.126: what is the meaning of pile up 7.63%? One events over thirteen (e.g. 1/7.63%) has an additional interaction?
-l.126: what is the meaning of 7.63%? One events over thirteen (e.g. 1/7.63%) has an additional interaction?
+l.149: "HIJING yields the best overall descriptions of the data" This statement is debatable. Fig.2 indicates that in low energy bins QGSjets is not significantly worse than HIJING and seems to better reproduce the shape of the distribution.
-l.149: "HIJING yields the best overall descriptions of the data"
+Furthermore on Fig.2: for HIJING the alignment uncertainty increases at higher E while for the other MC predictions this uncertainty decreases at higher E. Is this behavior understood?
-This statement is debatable. Fig.2 indicates that in low energy bins QGSjets is not significantly worse than HIJING and seems to better reproduce the shape of the distribution. Furthermore on Fig.2: for HIJING the alignment uncertainty increases at higher E while for the other MC predictions this uncertainty decreases at higher E. Is this behavior understood?
 l.172-175: "Model dependence" used in the unfolding is the largest source of systematic uncertainty.