Differenze

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

--- cms:hin-13-003 [17/09/2013 12:26]
ortona
+++ cms:hin-13-003 [17/09/2013 22:38] (versione attuale)
casasso
@@ Linea 171: / Linea 171: @@
 At line 214 you conclude that the decreasing trend of Y(nS)/Y(1S) vs Ntracks can't be explained by selections or feed-down. Then the issue is abandoned until line 270, thus forcing the reader to go back and forth in the paper. It would be better to reorganize a bit the discussion moving lines 270-284 after line 214, or (worst, in my opinion) anticipating in line 214 that the effect is discussed later in the paper if you want to keep it as it is.
+Riccardo
+--------
+Abstract
+Overall, I think it needs to be reworked out. It gives too many details, while on the other hand does not really explain in a convincing way what is the actual measurement. The results have been put down as factual, while their are the actual measurement, e.g. (but it is only _one_ example), it is written: "the ratios of the excited to the ground state decrease with [...]", I would rewrite underlining that it is a result, to sound something like: "we found that the ratios of the excited to the ground state decrease with [...]" (this is one example).
+Going also point by point to the abstract text:
+- I suggest to remove the quote from "event activity", quotes in general gives an idea of approximation (meaning that what is quoted is not the appropriate term to describe something).
+- The sentence "The Y yields normalized by their event average" is actually not meaningful
+- "[...] on the three states", at the first readings, one wonders what these "three states" are, as they are never introduced before. Rephrase such that it is clear that we refer to 3 different Y states.
+- "[...] measured as a function of the transverse energy.", transverse energy of what? It is unclear from the abstract only.
+General Comment
+I must admit that having the text written as a unique section makes uneasy the reading, make sections would be of great benefit from the reader point of view.
+Line by line comments:
+L19: "long after", I do not like it, we have not a time measurement to support that.
+L19-20: remove the quotes
+L23: as it is written the sentence, it seems that "their" refers to processes. The sentence should be rewritten.
+L25-L29: With the amount of information given in the previous 24 lines, it is not clear what conclusion one should drive from L25-29.
+L48: Not clear what you mean with "corrected to a full single-muon transverse-momentum coverage".
+L50: Transverse energy of what? Total? Not clear with the info available at this point of the paper.
+L52: "a central region"  --> "the central region"
+L53: individuals --> Y(nS)
+L54: you want to sue the construct  "both ... and ...", but then you put in parenthesis part of it. Remove the parenthesis.
+L54: the sentence "normalized ... activity" is hard to read. Please rephrase it (perhaps, it just need to drop the word collision).
+L86-89: I do not understand. The selection make a bias in the computation of the event-activity variable, then you apply it for that specific analysis? Are you sure that the "It" which starts the sentence has the meaning that you want?
+L88-89: What do you mean? That you did not removed the high-pu _events_? Otherwise I cannot see how you would lower the size of your sample, by removing pu collisions (which written like that  means additional collisions in the same event as the one of your interest).
+L88: "lose statistics" is jargon, either refer to the size of the sample or to the statistical uncertainty, not to the statistics itself.
+L92: remove the pythia version from the text
+L94: it is a bit reductive. I would rephrase to sound like: "The detector response is simulated with GEANT4[23], interfaced with the CMS Software. The simulated events are reconstructed using the same algorithms as for the data".
+L98: why 1.93 and not 1.9 or 1.95?
+L100-101: Not clear what is the symmetry you write about.
+L121: "taken as a conservative" --> "taken conservatively as"
+L188: remove "(described below)"
+L219-229: It is unclear if you make directly use of the PbPb data too. If so, it should be stated in the list of the used samples in the analysis.
+TYPE B like: L230-238: I was convinced (L9-13) that pp and pPb can explore different physics mechanisms than PbPb. Now here you put everything together, and one naively expects differences that at least can be partially explained by the models you describe in the introduction.
+I think therefore that L236-238 is a bit inadequate as comment to the differences between the three systems.
+L244: "does not cancel" --> "does not cancel out"
+L255: "J/psi measurement", I do not think exist a "J/Psi measurement", do you mean "measurement with J/psi" or "measurement of j/psi yield" or ?
+Figures:
+- All (or almost) y-axis labels need a bit more off-set to not overlap with scale labels.
+- In several figures (i.e., 2,3,4 and 5), Y(ns) --> Y(nS) in the y-axis labels
+Caption Fig.1: "black circles" --> "black dot" or "black solid circles"
+Fig.2 left: the Y(3S)/Y(1S) bin has different marker styles that what reported in Y(2S)/Y(1S) bin, please make use of one style only, also to be consistent with the legend
+Fig.3,4,5: it is not described in the caption what are the shaded regions around the points.
+Fig.3: right plot reports twice the word "preliminary". Btw, isn't it for paper? Sure that we have to use the word "preliminary" at all in the plots?
+TYPE B like: Fig.3,4,5: Why the error on x of the points is not displayed?
+Fig.4: the eta region fiducial cut is displayed twice. Can you put |y|<1.93 below the first column of the legend, more or less in the same position as |y|<2.4?
+Tab 1: what is the uncertainty on the <N> and <ET>? We shall write them and also put the relative bars in the relevant plots (see above).
+-----------------------------------------------------------------
+Stefano C.
+TYPE B
+- The title does not match exactly the content of the paper
+- I think that using the 2011 PbPb results as a reference is not 100% fair and the justification given at L150-159 still leave me doubtful, given that there seems to be some tension between the pp single ratios measured in 2011 and 2013
+- In general the article reads fine to me (even though I am far from being an expert of the topic). Still I think it can be improved:
+   --maybe it's too long, and it can be shortened first of all by avoiding repetitions
+   --since the content it's clearly divided into 3 measurements, maybe dividing it in sections accordingly would be good for the readibility
+- where available and if feasible: overlay theoretical predictions in the plot
+TYPE A
+L 44: maybe the list of the cuts can be dropped, since it is repeated at L98
+L 80: "electromagnetic" what?
+L 85-86: why quote the luminosity after the cuts? I think it is misleading, even though there is no "absolute" measurement in the paper
+L 102: no need to say this IMO
+L 111-112: has it been checked that the resolution does not depend on the event activity? If yes maybe it is wort mentioning
+L 162: "global" -> "other"?
+L 169: "and/or": I don't like it
+L 175: I don't like the abbreviation for variable 1) since it is at the me time difficult to read and does not exactly match the eta coverage which is > 4 but also < 5.2 Consider something like E_{T}^{fwd}
+Figure 3: consider dropping it and leave only figure 4
+L 181-185: the binning is discussed in details but I cannot see a justification for this "complicated" choice. If there is one please mention it
+L 262-265: the statement is not clear to me (probably my fault)