Differenze

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

--- cms:sus-11-016 [03/10/2012 09:15]
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 86: / Linea 115: @@
 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...)
-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:
@@ Linea 100: / Linea 130: @@
 ) 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?