http://cms.cern.ch/cds/SUS-11-016
Stefano A.
Type A:
Abstract: 1. “up to 4.98 fb-1”: we would suggest to write the actual range instead of “up to” (throughout the paper)
2. “range of mass parameters” : which mass ?
L1-L6: the word “particle” is repeated 3 times in two lines
L5: “one theoretical model …” This is coming out of the blue, we should at least say (in one sentence) why this particular one is used in most CMS analyses.
L5 : “in most CMS analyses ” → In most of the analyses performed by the CMS collaboration (or similar rephrasing)
L7 : principal → principle (or at least, this seems to be the intended meaning) or remove the word and commas.
L7/9 : repetition of the word “particle”
L13-14 : “For each SimplM, values of Axepsilon can be calculated to translate a number of signal events into a cross section ” . This needs rephrasing, e.g. “can be calculated to measure a cross section given the number of observed signal candidates”. But it is not clear at this point if it _can_ be calculated or if actually did it.
L15/16: We would suggest: “an upper limit on the xs times the br ($[\sigma \times BF]_{UL}$)”, then remove ($[\sigma \times BF]$) at the end of the sentence. The definition in symbols without the UL is not used in the rest of the paper if we are not mistaken.
L113 : “denoted the ” → denoted as the
Nicolo`
It's a very complex paper, written with care and with a strong effort for clarity. As a SUSY non-expert, it's not the easiest paper to follow, but the authors managed to explain their reasoning very clearly.
I only have one comment to improve readability: it would be nice to have more pseudo-Feynman diagrams to follow the reasonings. One picture with the diagrams of the processes listed in Table 1 would help a lot.
L5: and the production cross sections and decay properties for particles. =⇒ and their production cross sections and decay properties.
L7: However, in principal, the results =⇒ However the results
L20: be compared to a theoretical prediction from a SUSY or non-SUSY model to determine =⇒ be compared to theoretical predictions from a SUSY or non-SUSY models to determine
L36-37: “objects”. Let's call them “quantities”, they are objects only in the virtual universe of a specific programming language.
L63: The e/μ ANN analysis ⇒ The so called “e/μ ANN” analysis
L102: chosen that =⇒ chosen to
L110: None of the specific predictions of the cMSSM are applied =⇒ Very mysterious sentence, please make it clearer or delete it.
L113: decay chain ends in the decay to a neutral =⇒ decay chain ends with a neutral
L119: In general, the Simplified Models =⇒ The Simplified Models
L165: SUSY expressions =⇒ not clear what these “expressions” are in PYTHIA
L170: compared with the SUSY cross section =⇒ Do we need to add what kind of SUSY is this one?
L172: [33]. ^2 =⇒ [33]^2 .
L305: b tag =⇒ b-tag
Table1: what is the logic of the different number of horizontal lines? Sometimes there are 1, or 2 or 3.
Figures 1,2,3 and 4: 7 TeV =⇒ \sqrt{s} = 7 TeV Figures 2,3 and 4: they quote the year “CMS 2012”. 2 issues: 1) do we need to add the year to plots? If yes, please add it to Fig. 1 as well 2) Normally the date refers to the data taking period, not to the date of the paper: “2012” can lead to the confusion that this are 2012 data, at 8 TeV.
Ernesto
Type A:
L12: Not clear at this stage which aspects of the Simplified Models are “In contrast” to the cMSSM (I guess the main difference is the strength of the couplings…).
What's about “is fully defined specifying the masses and the production and decay sequence of a set of new particles”
L35: “built around” → I am not a native English speaker but it sounds a bit strange to me being almost CMS “contained” within the solenoid
L.106-110: the order of the sentences “In this document…applied” could be rearranged
⇒ “In this document, the selection of models used is motivated by the particles and interactions of the cMSSM (or generalized gauge mediation [31]) and, for convenience, the particle naming convention of the MSSM is adopted. However, Simplified Models can be reconstructed based on different SUSY or non-SUSY phenomenology and in this analysis none of the specific predictions of the cMSSM are applied.”
L.165: “SUSY expressions” → “SUSY predictions”
L.170: since it is used later as key-ingredient for extracting the limits, one should probably emphasize even more what is the “benchmark”
⇒ “Then [sigma x BF]_UL is compared to the SUSY benchmark cross section …”
L.181: “chargino mass” → “heavier (or intermediate?) neutralino mass”
For clarity, one should underline that this corresponds to x=1/2 of L.116, as in the caption of Fig.1.
L.187: “different mass parameters” → again for clarity one should probably write explicitly “different values of the masses of the gluino and of the lightest neutralino”
L.198 (and Fig.1):
While it is clear how efficiency*acceptance is extracted it is less clear why the figures on the right do not show the same pattern (e.g. isolines) of those on the left just with a different scale (e.g. % on the left, pb on the right).
More specifically: the text mentions “the predicted background”. Is the number of predicted background events the same for all the points in the (
~g),m(LSP)) plane and the difference in the isoline patterns between left and right plots arises only when including it in the CLs calculation?
Or is the change in the isolines pattern due to the fact the points with the same value efficiency*acceptance have different uncertainties on the efficiency*acceptance itself?
Or, finally, is the selection of the events different in different regions of the (~g),m(LSP)) plane, so the number of selected events changes as well?
Whatever is the reason it is probably worthwhile to explain it in the text.
L.214: remove “The limits are thus subject to statistical fluctuations” (as everything…)
Fig.1 caption “chargino” → “neutralino”
I have also two conceptual questions about these plots:
1) Does LSP coincide with N_0^1 for all the points of the plots?
2) The fine dashed lines diagonal seem to indicate a kinematic limit, e.g. m(LSP)<~g), which is probably wrong for the topology analyzed as for the cascade ~g→N_0^2→N_0^1 is m(LSP)<~g)-m(N_0^2)
Also the fact that there is a constant offset between the dashed line and the edge of the “color” region is not intuitive Why do you expect a constant offset? Does this correspond to a constant m(N_0^2), specifically 200 GeV?