Questa è una vecchia versione del documento!
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