Differenze

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

--- cms:sus-11-016 [02/10/2012 10:46]
migliore
+++ 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`
@@ Linea 66: / Linea 95: @@
 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 sound a bit strange to me being almost CMS "contained"
+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
@@ Linea 75: / Linea 104: @@
 L.165: "SUSY expressions" -> "SUSY predictions"
-L.170: since it is used later, one should probably emphasize even more what is the "benchmark"
+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 ..."
+=> "Then [sigma x BF]_UL is compared to the SUSY benchmark cross section ..."
 L.181: "chargino mass" -> "heavier (or intermediate?) neutralino mass"
-For clarity, should be underlined that this corresponds to x=1/2 of L.116, as in the caption of Fig.1?
+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" -> for clarity one should probably write explicitly "different values of the masses of the gluino and of the lightest neutralino"
+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 but 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 then the difference 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...)
-Fig.1  In the top header of each plot: Why m(~q)>>m(~g) and not the opposite?
+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?
-caption "chargino" -> "neutralino"