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:fwd-11-002 [08/11/2011 09:27]
cartigli 		cms:fwd-11-002 [08/11/2011 21:08] (versione attuale)
pastrone
Linea 1: Linea 1:
 http://​cms.cern.ch/​cds/​FWD-11-002 ​ http://​cms.cern.ch/​cds/​FWD-11-002 ​
 +
 +**Nicolo'​**
  
 The paper presents clearly a nice and really important measurement. It provides details on the method and explanation on why the measurement is relevant. ​ The paper presents clearly a nice and really important measurement. It provides details on the method and explanation on why the measurement is relevant. ​
Linea 13: Linea 15:
 We congratulate with the authors for this nice work. We congratulate with the authors for this nice work.
  
 +**Michele**
 +
 +general comments
 +----------------
 +
 +o) This is an interesting measurement. The combined study of forward and forward-central jets is very powerful.
 +
 +o) The introduction appears to promise more (multiparton production, DGLAP, BFKL, CCFM, PDFs) than what we say in the conclusions. It might be appropriate to tone down the introduction a little bit, or perhaps make the conclusion sharper, if possible. As an example, based eg on Fig 8, one is tempted to conclude that Pythia 6 (D6T and Z2), Pythia 8 and Cascade are completely ruled out by the data. If this is so, then we could perhaps write it ?
 +
 +o) Along a similar line of thought: it would be useful to know to what degree the current data are sensitive to unexplored regions in x and Q2. In other words, which of the measured bins probe regions where the PDFs were never measured ?
 +
 +o) Do I understand well (sect 4) that PF objects were not used ? why ?
 +
 +o) The text is sometimes difficult to read. Reading/​checking by a native speaker of English might be useful.
 +
 +o) Figures are very difficult to read in black and white. We should not assume that the reader has a colour printer -- in fact text/​captions should not refer to colours in the figured.
 +
 +General cosmetic comments
 +-------------------------
 +
 +o) please use the past tense for all events in the past, eg
 +
 +data have been analysed --> data were analysed
 +
 +events are required --> events were required
 +
 +the vertex is reconstructed --> the vertex was reconstructed
 +
 +Pythia is run --> Pythia was run
 +
 +etc
 +
 +o) please avoid dangling gerunds, eg
 +
 +efficiencies are determined taking -->
 +efficiencies are determined by taking
 +
 +factors derived using data --> factors derived by using data
 +
 +etc
 +
 +o) please hyphen two-word combinations used as an adjective, eg
 +minimum bias trigger --> minimum-bias trigger etc
 +
 +o) please use abbreviation Fig. except when at beginning of sentence when Figure is ok.
 +
 +
 +line-by-line comments
 +---------------------
 +
 +o) Abstract -- eta region is different from that in the main text
 +
 +o) l 15 provideS
 +
 +o) l 22 with --> by
 +
 +o) l 24 for general vector-boson... --> for the measurement of vector-boson scattering cross sections
 +
 +o) l 75 First, data --> Data
 +
 +o) l 78 Secondly, data --> Data were also collected
 +
 +o) l 84 beamS
 +
 +o) l 85 centre of the detector --> nominal interaction point ?
 +
 +o) l 92 ratio of the events --> ratio of the event yields
 +
 +o) l 93 over the events --> over the yields of events
 +
 +o) l 105 individual readouts of calorimeter channels -->
 +individual calorimeter readout channels
 +
 +o) l 109 forward and central --> central and forward
 +
 +o) l 139 true centre -- how was this determined ?
 +
 +o) Fig. 1, If I understand well, these are not cross sections, but partially corrected yields. Please change caption and vertical label of plot accordingly.
 +
 +o) l 160 diverse --> different ?
 +
 +o) just below l 166 both methods --> the two methods
 +
 +o) 4 lines below that --> which
 +
 +o) l 168 comma before '​respectively'​
 +
 +o) l 169 obtained BY comparing
 +
 +o) ll 167-175, including the paragraph without line numbering just above: I lose my way. Why is the correction factor now a function of sigma and not pT ? in fact I am not even too sure what f stands for here. Please clarify.
 +
 +o) l 176 please consider rephrasing as Determination of the cross section and the systematic uncertainties
 +
 +o) l 191 studied reconstructing --> studied BY reconstructing
 +
 +o) l 191-193 what about the pileup without a vertex (which is probably important in the forward region) ?
 +
 +o) l 206-208 shouldn'​t this be a bullet on its own ?
 +
 +o) l 213 subdominant with respect to --> smaller than ?
 +
 +o) Caption of Fig 3
 +uncertainty adding --> uncertainty obtained by adding
 +
 +o) Table 1: please use fewer significant digits -- uncertainties should have no more than two. Also please use the same number of significant digits in result and uncertainties.
 +
 +o) l 217 Please consider rephrasing as Results and comparison to theory
 +
 +o) l 229 Pythia 6 --> The Pythia6
 +
 +o) l 239-243 Please consider splitting into 2-3 sentences -- as it is it has two levels of incidental sentences built in and is difficult to read.
 +
 +o) l 256 and added --> and the resulting variations of the PDFs added
 +
 +o) l 262 subleading --> smaller
 +
 +o) l 266 to 68% --> to the 68%
 +
 +o) l 267 account --> ​ accountS
 +
 +o) l 269 and added --> and the resulting change in the results added
 +
 +o) Fig 5, caption
 +
 +error-bars --> error bars
 +
 +show statistical uncertaintes and the systematic --> show THE statistical
 +uncertainties;​ the systematic
 +
 +o) l 292 please consider removing 'in comparison to data'
 +
 +o) l 296 please consider removing 'with varying PDFs'
 +
 +o) l 298 please consider removing 'at all pT bins'
 +
 +o) l 299 the reader would probably be grateful for a one sentence '​bottom line' of this section.
 +
 +o) l 309 the ratio...are --> the ratio...is
 +
 +o) l 320 with THE Herwig parton shower
 +
 +o) l 320 shape well --> shape of the data well
 +
 +o) l 321 the normalisation --> their normalisation
 +
 +o) l 323-324 It would be nice to say something for the uninitiated reader about the meaning of the comparison with a parton level prediction. WHat is the expected size of the correction ?
 +
 +o) l 325-337 I wonder if one could be stronger and more explicit here: there seem to be a number of curves which are very far away from the data (Pythia 6 d6t and Z2, Pythia 8, Cascade). Aren't these MC simply ruled out by the data ?
 +
 +o) l 337 here as well it would be nice to have a one- or two-sentence summary of this section. Which generators are ruled out ? what have we learned ?
 +
 +o) l 341 please remove comma
 +
 +o) l 341 by --> with
 +
 +o) l 343 range of 35 --> range 35
 +
 +o) l 345 scale --> scale uncertainty.
 +
 +o) l 345-6 in parton --> in the parton
 +
 +o) l 346 as well as accounting etc -- something wrong with the structure of the sentence.
 +
 +o) l 354-5 reproduces better the shape and absolute normalisation
 +of the coincident central and forward jet spectra -->
 +reproduces better the shape and absolute normalisation
 +of the data with simultaneous production of central and forward jets
 +
 +o) l 357 data-model disagreement --> disagreement
 +
 +o) l 366-400 please replace with current file (notably remove line 400) 
 +
 +**Marco**
 +
 +Trovo che il papero prometta piu di quello che puo realmente dimostrare
 +
 +La misura e' motlo interessante e interpreto la generale discrepanza con i modelli come un "​bene",​ visto che la questione dei multijet e in particolare dell'​adronizzazione e' tutta da capire
 +
 +Non riesco a condividere come 
 +l347  si parli di globally well  agreement ​ per quanto ci sia il caveat del current uncertainties che sono dell'​ordine del 20-30%
 +
 +Credo che le conclusioni siano globalmente da rivedere in chiave piu' realistica: ad esempio
  
 +357 Calculations including resummation of low-x logarithms, as in the CAS- 
 +358 C A D E Monte Carlo, do not reproduce well the central jet spectrum, but alternative approaches ​
 +359 that account for multijet BFKL-type topologies such as in the HEJ model reach a reasonable ​
 +360 agreement with the dijet data albeit at the parton-level.
  
 +e' vera per central jet ma falsa per il forward jet.
  
 +Per le questioni di forma mi allineo con quanto detto da Michele e Nicolo