Difference: ARCReviewSUS15009 (13 vs. 14)

Revision 142016-10-07 - BrianFrancis

Line: 1 to 1
META TOPICPARENT name="BrianFrancis"

SUS-15-009: Search for natural GMSB in events with top quark pairs and photons (8 TeV)

Line: 143 to 143

ARC review


Manfred Paulini on PAS v3:

<!--/twistyPlugin twikiMakeVisibleInline-->

- General comments:

. some of the figures (Fig. 2, 3, 4) are still quite small and have somewhat small labels. We'll probably have to revisit their beautification for CWR but can leave them as is for now.

. I would move Tables 1 and 2 to [tb] and not have them [h]

Changing them both to [tb] seems an improvement, done.

. I think we should re-label the more-than-one-photon category and call it two-photon category. The GMSB signal scenario in Fig. 1 shows 2 photons to be produced and not more than 2. It seems strange to me that we would then choose a 2 photons or more category besides the exactly 1 photon category. Since on l 94/95, we say we have no events with 3 or more photons, we should just simplify how we describe th analysis and talk about a 1-photon and a 2-photon category (and not 2+). For details on this suggestion, please see the line by line comments below

This did feel clunky, but I had kept it in for a feeling of completeness; the cuts applied would include any 3 photon events, if there were any. Someone somewhere will wonder if there were any 3 photon events in the data, and lines 94-95 should satisfy that person. So I agree, this terminology will be simplified as a "2 photon" category.

* More specific line-by-line comments:

- Fig. 1: with the neutralino decaying primarily to a photon and gravitino. --> with the neutralino decaying to a photon and gravitino. [I'm not sure what we want to say with "primarily". Since the "non-primarily" option is not explained and we have neutralino decaying to a photon and gravitino in the figure, I would scratch the "primarily".

- l 1: Supersymmetry [1–9] (SUSY) --> Supersymmetry (SUSY) [1–9]

- l 14: Similar comment as Fig. 1: I would scratch "dominant"

- l 19: We need a sentence stating that we assume one of the W's to decay into lepton and neutrino. [Otherwise it seems a bit surprising to state in l 20, that we require the presence of a lepton.]

- l 25/26: either exactly one photon, or more than one photon (2+). --> either exactly one photon, or two photons.

- l 42: can we check the 1% energy resolution for unconverted photons [seems too good to me to be true ...]

- l 47/48: of all reconstructed particles in an event. --> of all reconstructed objects in an event. [since we don't reconstruct every particle in a jet but just the jet itself, I would use the expression 'object'.]

- l 49: The first level (L1) of the ... --> The first level of the ... [L1 does not seem to be used again]

- l 54: and the relevant kinematic variables, can be ... --> and the relevant kinematic variables such as pseudo-rapidity $\eta$ or the azimuthal angle $\phi$, can be ... [since eta-phi show up a few lines below (l 58), I would explicitly mention them here.]

- l 71: ... ECAL which are ... --> ... ECAL, which are ...

- l 72: should we explicitly state the eta range for the transition region that we exclude?

- l 90: by at least dR > 0.5. [at least and > seems overkill; either say 'by dR > 0.5' or by at least dR = 0.5]

- l 93: by at least dR > 0.7. [Same comment as l 90]

- l 94: and SR2 contains two or more photon candidates. --> and SR2 contains two photon candidates. and remove 'No events in data are observed with three or more photon candidates.'

- l 105: in the signal region; the presence ... --> in the signal region. However, the presence ... [not sure whether the suggestion captures the idea of the text but I would use a period and not a semicolon here]

- l 111: other WWfinal state). --> other WW final state).

- l 118: at least at NLO. --> at least at next-to-leading order. [NLO does not seem to be defined and used again]

- l 132/133: derive a second scale factor to correct ... --> derive a second scale factor $SF_{e\to\gamma}$ to correct [I would explicitly state SF_e-gamma here since SF_Z(gamma) is introduced above and SF_e-gamma is used in Table 1]

- l 140: applied to Z(gamma) + jets MC --> applied to the Z(gamma) + jets MC [maybe an issue for the LE]

- Table 1: and for electron-to photon --> and electron-to photon [I think 'for' from 'Scale factors for ...' also relates here]

- Fig. 2: Should we add a sentence explaining the ratio plots at the bottom of each figure?

- l 168: performance of the ETmiss shape --> performance of the extrapolation of the ETmiss shape

- l 180: for a background --> for a given background

- l 180: are treated simultaneously and as completely correlated. --> are treated simultaneously and assumed to be completely correlated.

- l 181: are simulated in MC and are assigned --> are simulated in MC and assigned

- Fig. 3/4: . we should probably change the axis label of ET with the slash through into ETmiss as used in the text . with two or more --> with two

- Tab. 2: normalizations --> normalization [not sure ...]

- l 191: The GMSB signal spectrum is generated ... To interpret the data a GMSB signal spectrum is generated ... [it seems very sudden to me that we now suddenly talk about a GMSB MC being generated ...]

- Fig. 4: what's the 'durp' doing here?

- l 198: why is M_top in italic while M_stop and _bino are in roman?

- l 200: the 95% confidence interval cross section upper limits --> the 95% confidence level (CL) cross section upper limits [we need to define CL somewhere in the text as it is used in Fig. 5 and change C.L. -->

CL in Fig 6 to be consistent (or use C.L> consistently]

- Fig. 5/6: on the axis labels we have M_Bino and M_Stop with capital B and S while in the caption and text we use M_bino and M_stop

- l 206: in top quark pair and photons events. --> in events with a top quark pair and photons.

- Ref [13] is now published in PRL

@article{Aad:2015zhl, author = "Aad, Georges and others", title = "{Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in $pp$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments}", booktitle = "{Proceedings, Meeting of the APS Division of Particles and Fields (DPF 2015): Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 4-8 Aug 2015}", collaboration = "ATLAS, CMS", journal = "Phys. Rev. Lett.", volume = "114", year = "2015", pages = "191803", doi = "10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803", eprint = "1503.07589", archivePrefix = "arXiv", primaryClass = "hep-ex", reportNumber = "ATLAS-HIGG-2014-14, CMS-HIG-14-042, CERN-PH-EP-2015-075", SLACcitation = "%%CITATION = ARXIV:1503.07589;%%" }


Manfred Paulini on PAS v1:

Line: 863 to 1052

Anthony Barker on PAS v3:

<!--/twistyPlugin twikiMakeVisibleInline-->

Line 96: Please make the sentence start with "Reconstructed photons" rather than just "photons" since these reco objects do not result from photons at all.


Lines 132 and 133 contradict lines 120 through 122. The former says the electron to photon misidentification factors come from a electron + jet channel and the latter says it comes from Z->ee through an electron+photon channel.

These lines describe two different scale factors, where the "first step" (see line 125-126) uses a di-leptonic selection similar to electron+jet in SR1. The second scale factor for the actual mis-ID rate (see lines 132-133, "once this first SF has been applied...a second SF...), which does indeed use the electron+jet channel in SR1. These sections can be confusing I agree, and I have reworded some sections to highlight these as two different measurements. This now reads:

This misidentification rate is observable as the $Z$
boson mass resonance in the invariant mass distribution of
electron-photon pairs in the electron+jets channel
of SR1. The measurement of this rate
depends on the accurate estimation of the number of selected $Z$ bosons
in each channel, so the first step is in measuring a scale factor
for the $Z+jets$ and $Z\gamma+jets$ MC. This scale factor is measured using a dileptonic
selection similar to the electron+jets SR1 selection, but altered to require two leptons of the same flavor instead of
only one....

Once this first scale factor has been applied to correct the MC
estimate of the number of $Z$ bosons, the $Z$ boson resonance in the electron+jets
channel of SR1 is used to derive a second scale
factor to correct the misdentification rate of electrons as

Language comments: Line 101: Change "definition is chosen to be orthogonal to the signal regions", to read "definition is chosen to not intersect with the signal region". Regions of parameter space are not vectors. HEX uses the term "orthogonal" as a needlessly jargony metaphors for scalar products of vectors. The language of set theory describes this precisely while being simpler and easier for the non-initiated to understand.

Line 111: Need a space or hyphen in “WWfinal”.



Anthony Barker on AN v3:

Anthony Barker on PAS v0:

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback