Difference: ARCReviewSUS15009 (14 vs. 15)

Revision 152016-10-09 - 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: 194 to 194
 
- l 1: Supersymmetry [19] (SUSY) -->
Supersymmetry (SUSY) [19]

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

Added:
>
>

Changed.

 
Added:
>
>
 - 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.]
Added:
>
>

I have added a statement on line 20 to now read:

The analysis focuses on the semileptonic mode of the \ttbar
pair, where one of the resulting $W$ bosons decays to a lepton and
neutrino. Based on 19.7~fb$^{-1}$ of pp collisions at
$\sqrt{s}=8\TeV$, the analysis requires the presence of exactly one
isolated lepton...
 
Added:
>
>
 
- l 25/26: either exactly one photon, or more than one photon (2+).
-->
either exactly one photon, or two photons.
Added:
>
>

Changed.

 
Added:
>
>
 - l 42: can we check the 1% energy resolution for unconverted photons [seems too good to me to be true ...]
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
Reference [32] of the next sentence reports this, as well as the 1.3% to 2.5% figures right after it.

 
- 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'.]
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
Agreed.

 
- l 49: The first level (L1) of the ... -->
The first level of the ... [L1 does not seem to be used again]
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
It is not used again, and can be removed.

 
- 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.]
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
Added.

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

Fixed.

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

Possibly, but I have not seen it in other PASes. I suppose these ranges could change slightly with the Run II alignment, and it might mislead some reader somewhere. My inclination here is to keep it as is.

 
Added:
>
>
 - 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]

Added:
>
>

Edited to use "by at least a $\Delta R$ of $0.5$."

 
Added:
>
>
 
- 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.'
Added:
>
>

Done

 
Added:
>
>
 
- 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]
Added:
>
>

This sentence proved difficult, and I couldn't separate these two ideas into different sentences. I attempted to simplify it as:

 
Added:
>
>
The control regions
allow for the study of the performance of the \MET simulation with the most poorly
reconstructed photon-like objects expected in the signal region, for
which the effect on the \MET resolution is expected to be much smaller
than that of the presence of a semileptonic \ttbar decay.

 
- 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]

Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
Done.

 
- 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]
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
Agreed.

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

Changed.

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

Fixed.

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

The caption now states "The ratio of data to the total background is included at the bottom of each figure."

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

With it continuing as "performance of the ETmiss background shape predicition", I think "extrapolation would be redundant. This sentence also contained several other typos, which have been edited to now read as:

 
Added:
>
>
With the above scale factors applied to each background, the control
regions offer a signal-free evaluation of the performance of the \MET
background shape prediction, giving an acceptance times efficiency of
less than 1\% of the signal model.

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

- l 180: are treated simultaneously and as completely correlated.

Line: 272 to 385
 
- l 181: are simulated in MC and are assigned
-->
are simulated in MC and assigned
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
Fixed.

 
- 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
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
Both changed.

 
- Tab. 2: normalizations -->
normalization [not sure ...]
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
I believe because they are two distinct values this should be pluralized.

 - 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 ...]
Added:
>
>

Agreed.

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

This is a very good catch. I tend to use garbage words like this to indicate where I was last working, so I can easily find my place in the document. It seems that I forgot to remove this one...I've now taken a careful look through the entire document to be sure these are gone.

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

I mistakenly did not include the \text of M_{\text{top}}. Now fixed.

 
Added:
>
>
 
- 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]
Added:
>
>

I agree, all are now changed to "CL" without periods.

 
Added:
>
>
 - 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
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
M_Bino and M_Stop are now capitalized in all instances.

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

 - Ref [13] is now published in PRL

@article{Aad:2015zhl,

Line: 328 to 486
 CERN-PH-EP-2015-075", SLACcitation = "%%CITATION = ARXIV:1503.07589;%%" }
Deleted:
<
<
 
Added:
>
>
I'm not completely certain I understand, as V3 of the PAS had this for reference [14]. However if you did mean [13], that has been published in EPJ. I've updated [13], and [14] should still show PRL.
 </>
<!--/twistyPlugin-->

Manfred Paulini on PAS v1:

 
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