Questa è una vecchia versione del documento!

---

http://cms.cern.ch/cds/HIN-13-003

Ernesto —

Abstract:

It looks a bit strange that what we think is the main result of the paper (the integrated double ratios being smaller than 1) comes after the discussion of the single ratio vs. the event activity.

remove double quotes around “event activity”

The cut on the muon pT>4 GeV could be omitted in the abstract

Text:

L5 should the references “[3-5]” be put at the end of the sentence (e.g. after “state” in L7)?

L42 “characterizing Y family” → “characterizing the Y family”

L50-L51 remove “1)” and “2)”

L61 “sensor elements” → “channels” (“sensor” usually indicates the silicon chunk)

L72 “The direction of the higher energy proton beam” → “In pPb collisions, the direction of the proton

  beam" ("higher energy" suggests we had also asymmetric pp collisions...)

L86 I think it is confusing to quote an “effective luminosity” (4.1pb-1) as the result of some event

  selection. Just quote the efficiency of this selection (4.1/5.4 isnt't it?)

L92 “the EVTGEN [21] package” → “EVTGEN [21]”

L93 “Final-state bremsstrahlung” → “Final-state radiation” (unless bremsstrahlung is used to indicate

  explicitley QED radiation 

L98 “passing several quality cuts” → “passing the quality cuts”

Fig.1 (right): L_int=5.1 pb-1 → shouldn't it be 5.4 pb-1 as in the text?