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
cms:sus-11-016 [03/10/2012 11:56]
argiro
cms:sus-11-016 [03/10/2012 12:29]
migliore
Linea 8: Linea 8:
 Abstract: ​ Abstract: ​
 1. "up to 4.98 fb-1": we would suggest to write the actual range instead of "up to" (throughout the paper) 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 ? 2. "range of mass parameters"​ : which mass ?
  
  
 L1-L6: the word "​particle"​ is repeated 3 times in two lines 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: "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) 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)+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"​ L7/9 : repetition of the word "​particle"​
Linea 112: Linea 115:
  
 L.198 (and Fig.1): 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.  +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 (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? +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 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 (m(~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...) 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:
Linea 126: Linea 130:
  
 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) 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 ​Why do you expect a constant offset? Does this correspond to a constant m(N_0^2), specifically 200 GeV?
-Could you elaborate a bit on it? +