Differenze
Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.
| Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente Prossima revisione | Revisione precedente | ||
|
cms:hig-12-005 [04/05/2012 11:25] casasso |
cms:hig-12-005 [04/05/2012 14:31] (versione attuale) migliore |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linea 57: | Linea 57: | ||
| - line 2-5: These two sentences sound a little too ‘strong’ to me | - 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 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 103-104: what is a ‘vertex fit’? | ||
| + | |||
| - line 114: ‘global-muon’ is jargon and anyway it’s not defined before | - line 114: ‘global-muon’ is jargon and anyway it’s not defined before | ||
| + | |||
| - line 131: ‘supercluster-pixel angle’ -> ‘angle between supercluster and pixel’ ? | - line 131: ‘supercluster-pixel angle’ -> ‘angle between supercluster and pixel’ ? | ||
| + | |||
| - line 142: ‘particle flow objects' is jargon and a reference is not enough | - 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 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 165-166: Number the equation and reference the choice of this estimator since it doesn’t sound trivial to me | ||
| + | |||
| - line 208: ‘interim’ -> ‘intermediate’ | - line 208: ‘interim’ -> ‘intermediate’ | ||
| + | |||
| - general comment: figures would be better with white background | - 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? | ||