Differenze

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

Link a questa pagina di confronto

Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente
Prossima revisione
Revisione precedente
Ultima revisione Entrambe le parti successive la revisione
cms:sus-11-016 [30/09/2012 15:40]
cartigli
cms:sus-11-016 [03/10/2012 12:21]
migliore
Linea 1: Linea 1:
 http://​cms.cern.ch/​cds/​SUS-11-016 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. ​ It's a very complex paper, written with care and with a strong effort for clarity. ​
Linea 51: Linea 84:
 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. 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. ​
 +More specifically:​ the text mentions "the predicted background"​. Is the number of predicted background events the same for all the points in the (m(~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 selection of the events different in different regions of the (m(~g),​m(LSP)) plane, so the number of selected events changes as well?
 +
 +
 +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)<​m(~g),​ which is probably wrong for the topology analyzed as for the cascade ~g->​N_0^2->​N_0^1 is m(LSP)<​m(~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 as I would expect a constant offset for a constant value of m(N_0^2), specifically 200 GeV. 
 +Could you elaborate a bit on it?