Differenze

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

--- cms:hig-12-005 [03/05/2012 09:33]
mariotti
+++ cms:hig-12-005 [04/05/2012 14:31] (versione attuale)
migliore
@@ Linea 4: / Linea 4: @@
 very nice analysis, done very carefully and exploring a variety of models and final states.
+Only 3 comments:
-line 2-3: The first sentence is not considered true by the full community. Neutrinos can have masses in the SM. Exactly like up type quark.
+line 2-3: The first sentence is not true in a generic case. Neutrinos a la Dirac can have masses in the SM. Majorana     neutrino would be an indication of New Physics. Thus or we specify it, or we suggest to delete the sentence.
 figure 2: I would do it without the "grid".
+line 75-76: which other process in the SM can give a double charged resonance?
+Mario:
+L2-3: I would smooth the sentence: "is a firmly established" -> "may represent a"
+L24: "has been searched for previously" -> "has been previously searched for"
+L97: It may not be clear to an unfamiliar reader that the 17 and 8 thresholds apply to each lepton in a LL trigger respectively
+L98-99: "because of increasing" -> "because of the increasing"
+L114: Global muon is CMS jargon, which could be used as long as it would be defined somewhere previously (didn't find any definition)
+L115-116: It is very hard to understand this sentence if one doesn't have a good knowledge of the muon reconstruction in CMS. I am supposing you are referring to the requirement of at least 1 valid hit in the muon fit, and of at least 2 muon segments matched to the track for ID. If one doesn't know that segments can contribute to the ID but their hits can be rejected for the global fit (so that a muon can "have" several segments but theoretically no hits), the first requirement seem to contain the second
+L131: The sentence "Agreement is required..." repeats the concept of the previous sentence and could be dropped
+L141-146: While it is interesting the fact that we use the HPS algorithm for tau reconstruction, the use of particle flow is not particularly interesting for an external reader and may be confusing (it doesn't really add value to the analysis in the way it is presented)
+L157: define "relative isolation"
+Number equation between lines 165 and 166
+L173: "is optimized for significance" -> "is optimized for Eq. 1"
+L174: hypothesis -> hypotheses
+L185: Introducing a cut on the opening angle between the leptons may lead to biases to the invariant mass distribution, as you are forcing your events in a particular region of the phase space. Have there been any studies on this?
+Table 2: It could be helpful to just repeat in the caption that the lepton couples to which the selection criteria are applied are the same-sign ones
+L230: "A wide mass window is used" -> "The mass window considered is wider than in the case of prompt leptons. This keeps..."
+L238: "a mass window is not used" -> "a mass window is not selected"
+Section 5.2: It is very hard to understand the method from this section. Perhaps a reference could help.
+L291-293: It is not clear from this sentence if you are saying that you reweighted your MC for your data/MC efficiency corrections, or if you applied the whole correction as a systematic uncertainty. Also, it would be nice to say that (if) you determined the corrections in bins of pt and eta
+L309-310: Split the luminosity systematic in a new paragraph, as it doesn't belong to the background systematics
+Stefano C. :
+- line 2-5: These two sentences sound a little too ‘strong’ to me
+- line 75-76: if you are referring to the ‘resonant structure’, SM processes are impossible, if you are referring to the production of same charge lepton pairs I would not say ‘extremely rare’
+- line 103-104: what is a ‘vertex fit’?
+- line 114: ‘global-muon’ is jargon and anyway it’s not defined before
+- line 131: ‘supercluster-pixel angle’ -> ‘angle between supercluster and pixel’ ?
+- line 142: ‘particle flow objects' is jargon and a reference is not enough
+- line 158: it’s really the official way to write the definition of ‘SIP’?
+- line 165-166: Number the equation and reference the choice of this estimator since it doesn’t sound trivial to me
+- line 208: ‘interim’ -> ‘intermediate’
+- general comment: figures would be better with white background
+Ernesto
+One main comment: it is a bit strange that in all the CL figures the observed median is essentially always below
+the expected median. Does it indicate some systematic error (overestimation of the efficiency, luminosity actually used or
+some missing background)?
+Fig.1: (right) Use W+ only (or add charge conjugate symbols for the phi). In general the choice of the symbols  for the lepton (roman l) and for the lepton flavour index (I,J,K,L) is not optimal (by chance it happens that there is a nu_L in a context where it could interpreted as "left" instead of a flavour index.
+- Section 4.2: the pT thresholds for electrons and muons are quite different: if there is a interest in going down to 5 GeV for the muon, the same should be true also for the electron (and there are analyses in CMS using electrons with ET< 10 GeV) Which is the reason for the different choice of the thresholds?
+Fig. 3: in the legend, "+jets"  seems to indicate explicitly that the inclusive process is meant. I think this is true also for the single-top
+Fig. 4: (left) remove single-top from the legend (as it does not show up in the plot)
+Section 4.6: probably too sub-sections too short
+Section 5: probably not split it into 5.1 and 5.2
+Table 4: (last line) "GeV" in math mode
+Table 6/Fig. 5: is it ordinary to include limits from different experiments in the summary of the CMS results?