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 [03/10/2012 09:14]
migliore
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` Nicolo`
Linea 92: Linea 121:
 L.214: remove "The limits are thus subject to statistical fluctuations" ​ (as everything...) L.214: remove "The limits are thus subject to statistical fluctuations" ​ (as everything...)
  
-Fig.1  ​In the top header of each plot: Why m(~q)>>​m(~g) and not the opposite? +Fig.1  caption "​chargino"​ -> "​neutralino"​
-caption "​chargino"​ -> "​neutralino"​+
  
 I have also two conceptual questions about these plots: I have also two conceptual questions about these plots:
  
-Does LSP coincide with N_0^1 for all the points of the plots?  +1) Does LSP coincide with N_0^1 for all the points of the plots?  
-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)+ 
 +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.  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?