http://cms.cern.ch/cds/SUS-13-012
Ernesto
Type B
How reliable is the analysis for N_jets>=7? It seems that for these events the statistics in the data is really limited. This is not in favor of an analysis where backgrounds are estimated using data-driven methods.
About QCD multijet: from fig.4 it seems that there is a deficit of MC events. Is my impression correct? If so, how does it translate into a systematic uncertainty?
Type A
L6: “the SM is incomplete” quite debatable statement… In general I have found the first paragraph (L2-10) quite speculative. I think that starting directly at L11 would make the paper more effective (References [1,2] and [3] can be reshuffled in the next paragraph)
L7-8: “candidates.. which is postulated” → “candidates… which are postulated”
L26-28: a bit vague… e.g. what are the “primary particles”? I would suggest to be more direct “In this paper simplified models of squark-squark production and gluino-gluino production, where the masses of primary particles and the LSP are free parameters, are used to interpret search results. This allows a generic study of the parameter space of SUSY and SUSY-like theories.” (not sure to understnad the difference between a SUSY anda SUSY-like theory…)
L49: “one or more” → “at least one”
L59: “6m” → “6 m”
L69: “using” → “combining”
L71: “Corrections” → “Corrections to the energy of the jet”
L73: “associated” to what?
L73+L113: use always “pileup” or “pile-up”
L121: “(in)efficiencies” → “efficiencies”
L124: remove “(R+S)” as afterward is used only in the plots of fig.4 (“R+S” can be defined in the caption)
L158: is the interval [81,101] GeV ore [71,11] GeV?
L160: it is not clear from Fig.1(d) why a linear fit is chosen and how the uncertainty band is computed. How much the final results changes if just an overall offset for R(Z/gamma) is introduced?
L170: it is not easy for a not-expert reader to understand the difference between the “missing transverse energy” and “momentum unbalance”
L260: missing “the” before “statistical”
L265: “5 (30)%” → “5% (30%)”
L270: “11-86%” looks a bit throwing dices… Do you really need to specify the range? Wouldn't be enough to explain how you assign the uncertainty?
L319: “In the models considered here…” do you refer to simplified models? If so remove the previous sentence “These SMS… more complex models” which is confusing.
L334: “are excluded” → “are excluded at 95% CL”
Fig.1 (a,b,c): replace the title of the y-axis “Z/gamma phen. ratio” with “R Z/gamma”
Table 1: what is the rationale for the choice of the binning for the momentum u=imbalance? The widths do not vary monotonically.
Fig.2,3,4: would it be possible to group the bins N_jet>=8 in the rightmost plots?
Fig.4 (caption): “Monte Carlo sample” → “simulation”. Define here “R+S”
Giacomo
Type B:
Abstract: “that are determined using data” → determined using data-driven techniques
L2-10: I think this paragraph is a bit speculative and makes some quite bold statements. For example I don't think it's correct to state a well-established theory as the SM is incomplete because it does not explain features (dark matter) that are indeed a much less established theory (at least until someone finds a dark matter particle). Imo the only true incompleteness of the SM so far is its failure to include gravity. I think this paragraph covers aspects that are currently hotly debated issues in physics that are far beyond the scope of this paper, probably it would be better to remove it or to rephrase it in a much milder way. Also, I would change “seems to mark” → “marks”. The paper with the Higgs spin-parity properties is also coming out, I don't know if it will be before this paper, but if this is the case it can be a good idea to add it to the references
L76: signal regions have not been introduced before, change “The signal-enriched search regions are first” → “Signal-enriched regions are”
L284: \cancel{H}_T > 400 is not present in the table, did you mean 300 or 450? If it is 450, as 300-450 is a 1 sigma fluctuation, change “bins”→“bin”.
Fig5: I like this figure but it's really big, and it's not clear to me what informations it adds with respect to table 1. In the case you will need to save space you can consider to remove it
Nicolo
Dear Colleagues,
I want to congratulate the authors for a very nice and interesting paper. I’m sure it marks an important point in our search of new physics.
The paper has to explain a lot of details, and often with a lot of sub-categories, therefore in a very complex paper to write.
I found the paper quite difficult to read, with many convoluted english expressions, and at times, grammatical errors.
I therefore strongly recommend a final reading with an additional English Editor.
Dimension: I think it’s much better to maintain the “c” visible.
p = GeV/c
mass = GeV/c^2
Abstract:
the scalar sum of jet transverse momenta and missing transverse momentum. =⇒ the scalar sum of jet transverse momenta and the missing transverse momentum.
“The observed numbers of events are consistent with standard model expectations that are determined using the data. “: this sentence is confusing: written as it is it means that you determine the standard model expectation just from data. The standard model expectations are coming from the “standard model”, so they are coming from theory. There is no way to extrapolate from a given cross section the value of another cross section without having in mind the “standard model”.
Line 5: as its properties measured so far are consistent =⇒ as its properties so far are consistent
Line 8: it does not predict candidates for dark matter, which is postulated =⇒
We have two choices:
1) it does not predict candidates for dark matter, which are postulated
2) i t does not predict dark matter, which is postulated
line 11: “generic search” =⇒ wide search (or maybe “inclusive”?)
line 32: each of which decays to one and two.. ⇒ decaying into one and two (don’t mix “each” and “respectively”)
line 35: and hence a large number of jets in the event ⇒ and hence a larger number of jets in the final state (you have the word “event” twice)
line 42: categorized =⇒ divided ( to similar to “characterize” just following)
line 47: an irredicible background from Z+jets events, where the Z boson decays to a pair of neutrinos, (Z(νν ̄)+jets); and W+jets and t ̄t events, where the W boson decays to an e, μ or τ (W(lν)+jets). =⇒ (i) an irreducible background from Z+jets events, where the Z boson decays to a pair of neutrinos, (Z(νν ̄)+jets); and (ii) W+jets and t ̄t events, where the W boson decays to an e, μ or τ (W(lν)+jets).
SPELL CHECK: irredicible does not exist!!
line 68: This algorithm reconstructs particles =⇒ This algorithm reconstructs a list of particles
line 74: FastJet: not clear what is it, add a sentence
line 90: scalar sum of pt =⇒ scalar pt sum
line 94: and is required to be < 20% and < 15% of pT of the e and μ respectively, =⇒ and it is required to be < 20% of the electron pt and < 15% of the muon pT.
MISTAKE: the paragraph end with a coma!!
line 118: The W(lν)+jets events pass the search selection when the e/μ is not identified or isolated, or is out of the detector acceptance (lost-lepton background) or when a τ decays hadronically (τh background). =⇒
The W(lν)+jets events pass the search selection when the e/μ is (i) not identified or isolated, (ii) out of the detector acceptance (lost-lepton background) or (iii) when a τ decays hadronically (τh background).
line 125: seed events that are obtained by a procedure that produces well =⇒ seed events obtained by selecting well
line 130: The Z boson and photon exhibit similar kinematic properties at high pT and the hadronic component of events is similar in the two cases =⇒ Z bosons and photons exhibit similar kinematic properties at high pT and therefore the hadronic component of an event containing either a high pt Z-boson or photon is similar.
line 136: where a variable which characterizes the lateral shape =⇒ where the lateral shape
line 138: The signal template is taken from simulation whereas the background is obtained from a data sideband region defined by a very loose photon identification and isolation and also required to fail one of the stringent photon isolation requirements. =⇒ The signal template is taken from simulation whereas the background is obtained from a sideband region populated by events selected with a very loose photon identification and isolation criteria while failing one of the stringent photon isolation requirements.
line 144: predicted by scaling =⇒ predicted scaling
line 150: it is parametrized =⇒ the ratio is parametrized
line 156: The Z(μ+μ−)+jets events have been selected by requiring two opposite sign muons passing the muon selection of the lepton veto and forming an invariant mass within an interval of 20 GeV around the Z boson mass. The ratio of Z(μ+μ−)+jets and γ+jets events in the data to that in the MC simulation is parametrized as a function of Njets using a linear function as shown in Fig. 1 (d). =⇒ The Z(μ+μ−)+jets events have been selected by requiring two opposite sign muons passing the muon selection and forming an invariant mass within 20 GeV of the Z boson mass. The ratio data over MC of Z(μ+μ−)+jets or γ+jets events is parametrized as a function of Njets using a linear function as shown in Fig. 1 (d).
line 180: The lepton isolation and reconstruction efficiencies and kinematic acceptance are obtained from MC simulation of W+jets and t ̄t events and are determined in bins of Njets , HT , and /HT . =⇒ The lepton isolation, reconstruction efficiencies, and kinematic acceptance are obtained from MC simulation of W+jets and t ̄t events and are determined in bins of Njets , HT , and /HT .
line 183:
This estimation method based on the data is validated by predicting the lost lepton background using a single muon sample from simulated t ̄t and W + jets events, and comparing the predicted and the expected true detector-level distributions. A comparison of the predicted and the expected distributions of HT, /HT, and Njets for events with a lost-lepton in the baseline selection region are shown in Fig. 2. =⇒ This estimation method is validated by comparing the predicted lost lepton background using a single muon sample from simulated t ̄t and W + jets events to the simulated true detector-level distributions, Fig. 2.
line 189: the lost-lepton events predicted from data using the method described above and uncertainties are listed in Table 1 for each search region. =⇒ the lost-lepton events and uncertainties are listed in Table 1 for each search region.
line 191: muon events selected from data for most =⇒ muon events in most
line 193: efficiencies =⇒ efficiency (it depends upon “a possible”)
line 196: closest jet to make =⇒ closest jet. This method makes
line 202: change -=⇒ changes (singular!)
line 211: except for the response of the detector =⇒ aside for the detector response
line 213: taken =⇒ sampled
line 218: template this =⇒ template, this
line 232: on the prediction =⇒ of the prediction
line 234: predictions … results =⇒ predictions…. result (PLURAL)
line 237: assigned on =⇒ assigned to
line 247: a pre scaled trigger (only each kth event is recorded to reduce the trigger rate) =⇒ with a trigger pre scaled by a factor k
line 249: samples used include the electroweak =⇒ sample also include the remaining
line 253: account for this =⇒ account for this effect