Differenze
Queste sono le differenze tra la revisione selezionata e la versione attuale della pagina.
Entrambe le parti precedenti la revisione Revisione precedente Prossima revisione | Revisione precedente | ||
cms:sus-11-016 [30/09/2012 15:40] cartigli |
cms:sus-11-016 [03/10/2012 12:29] (versione attuale) 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 52: | Linea 85: | ||
+ | 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 (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...) | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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 Why do you expect a constant offset? Does this correspond to a constant m(N_0^2), specifically 200 GeV? | ||