Differenze

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

--- cms:sus-11-016 [21/09/2012 22:59]
maselli creata
+++ cms:sus-11-016 [03/10/2012 12:29] (versione attuale)
migliore
@@ Linea 1: / Linea 1: @@
 http://cms.cern.ch/cds/SUS-11-016
+Stefano A.
+----------
+Type A:
+Abstract:
+. "up to 4.98 fb-1": we would suggest to write the actual range instead of "up to" (throughout the paper)
+. "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:
+) do we need to add the year to plots? If yes, please add it to Fig. 1 as well
+) 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 (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:
+) 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)
+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?