Questa è una vecchia versione del documento!
http://cms.cern.ch/cds/HIG-12-005
Chiara:
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 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