Difference: ResponsesToFRForSUS1500901 (1 vs. 8)

Revision 82017-06-05 - BradCox

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="STMProd"
-- BradCox - 2017-06-01
Line: 780 to 780
 

Changed:
<
<
Response: Since the other reader wanted references to other top squark searches I left this sentence in since it is the natural place to cite the other Atlas and MS searches.
>
>
Response: Since the other final readers wanted references to other top squark searches, I left this sentence in since it is the natural place to cite the other Atlas and CMS searches.
 

Line: 833 to 833
 

Changed:
<
<
Response: We have deleted the phrase referring to "false photons" sine it was unncessary to label them at this point. But we have referred to such photons later in the text.
>
>
Response: We have deleted the phrase referring to "false photons" since it was unncessary to label them at this point.
 
Comment - l. 32-35: I would not discuss the freely floating normalisation of ttj and ttgamma in the introduction (I only understood on l. 227 what you exactly mean). So I would remove the sentence on l. 32-35 "To reduce …. in pTmiss.".
Line: 920 to 919
  Response: A sentence is inserted stating this.
Changed:
<
<
Response 2: Brian, I need a reference for he version of GEANT you used.
>
>
Response 2: We have added a remark and reference to GEANT in the text.
 
Comment- l. 130: "correspond to small backgrounds" -->
"represent small backgrounds"
Line: 935 to 933
 It isn't clear what you mean here. I suggest to explain this in the text and shorten the caption.
Changed:
<
<
Response: Brian, can you think of a clearer way to explain what was done?
>
>
Response: We have rephrased this sentence to, hopefully, make it clear. We have left the sentence in the caption since it is the second uncertainty type.
 
Comments- Figure 1: these plots are used to determine the SF … but the ratios seem to be very close to 1 in the Z-region. Are the SF's already applied here?
Line: 944 to 943
 

Changed:
<
<
Response: The scale factor has already been applied. Response 2: Brain, I believe we already had this question before in the CWR. Am I correct. We should not this in the caption I think if it is true.
>
>
Response: The appropriate scale factors have already been applied for plots a, b, and c.
 
Comments- l. 158: "component" -->
"ingredient"?
Line: 989 to 986
 Comment- l. 187-188: please rephrase "signal region simulation of the distributions in ptmiss in the control region"
Changed:
<
<
Response: Brian. I do not understand this sentence myself. Can yo suggest a rewriting of it that makes it clear what you did.
>
>
Response: We have revised this sentence significatnly to reflect what was done to obtain the systematic errors in CR1, SR1, and SR2.
 
Comment - l. 189 and 190: "difference"… difference in what? I assume in pTmiss shape?
Changed:
<
<
Response: I think he is right but you have to read the new version of this paragraph to see if I modified it correctly.
>
>
Response: Yes, ptmiss shape. This is more clearly stated in the new version of this sentence.
 
Comment- l. 192: which distributions? … pTmiss?
Line: 1035 to 1033
 Comment - l. 202: the citations are partially missing here
Changed:
<
<
Response: Brian, he means the references for b tagging, and photon efficiencies. Can you supply these referencesif theyar diffierent form referenes we have already in bib.tex
>
>
Response: We have added additional references.
 
Comment - l. 209: I would suggest to change "m_ {top squark}" in to "m_{\tilde t}"
Line: 1072 to 1069
 

Changed:
<
<
Response: A attempt has been made.
>
>
Response: An attempt has been made.
 
Comment - l. 231: I would prefer that you quote the precise mass limits (corresponding to the highest and lowest LSP mass)
Changed:
<
<
Response: Brian, I have taken a suggestion from Keith to quote a 750 GeV upper limit. Filip wants something else, precise numbers corresponding to the highest and lowest LSP mass. I am not sure what that means.
>
>
Response: We have quoted the range of top squark mass exclusion for the extremes of the bino mass range.
 
Comment - l. 231: "mass-exclusion contours" -->
"exclusion contours"
Line: 1111 to 1106
 Comment - l. 238: be specific about which LSP mass these numbers correspond to
Changed:
<
<
Response: Once again, Brian, I am not sure what he is referring to as LSP mass. Is he referring to the bino mass?
>
>
Response: We have done so.
 
Comment - l. 240: drop this last sentence
Changed:
<
<
Response: This as suggested by the LE and has not been objected to by the other CWR or FR. Do we want to fight?
>
>
Response: We believe this statement to be true. We have not been able to find a result that contradicts this assertion. It has not been objected to by the other CWR or FR reader.
 

Revision 72017-06-05 - BradCox

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="STMProd"
-- BradCox - 2017-06-01
Line: 58 to 58
  Response: We have changed the wording.
Changed:
<
<
Response 2: Brian can you look if some appropriate references for top squark searches form ATLAS and CMS and give them to me to enter. I think you already did a search.
>
>
Response 2: We have referenced a selection of Atlas and CMS Top squark seaches
 
Comment: L15
Line: 263 to 263
 Comment: L116 - I don't see anything about GEANT being used to simulate the detector.
Changed:
<
<
Response: Brian, can you see where to add the role of GEANT in simulating the detector for these MC simulations?
>
>
Response: We have added a comment on the use of GEANT in simulating the detector and a reference for GEANT.
 
Comment: L130
Line: 389 to 389
 Comment: ***L207 I don't see anything about whether FastSim or FullSim was used here. Was this privately generated MC?
Changed:
<
<
Response: Brian, what did you use for MC?
>
>
Response: We used FastSim for the signal MC and FullSim for all other simulations.
 
Comment: L208
Line: 455 to 455
 Some symbols seem to be in boldface and others not. I don't see a reason why.
Changed:
<
<
Response: Sasha, can you fix Figure 4 replacing the symbols by top squarks and fix the boldface issue.
>
>
Response: Figure 4 and Figure 5 have been changed to delete the symbols for top squarks in the identification labels for the figure and the references in the figures. Boldface issues have been addressed.
 
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Line: 465 to 466
 
Comments Set 2: Keith Ulmer
Added:
>
>
 
Added:
>
>
 type B
Changed:
<
<
Introduction. Are there other relevant searches that you should be citing?
>
>
Comment: Introduction. Are there other relevant searches that you should be citing?
 
Changed:
<
<
Response: Waiting on Brian to give me a set of references.
>
>
Response: We have cited a selection of top squark searches from Atlas and CMS.
 
Comment -line 16. I don't understand the connection between R parity and strong production. Maybe just drop the "Assuming that R parity is conserved" clause?
Line: 487 to 491
  Response: The sentence in question has been restructured.
Deleted:
<
<
Response 2: You had better check this modified sentence Brian.
 
Comment -line 58. There's something wrong in the parenthetical list. muons and photons at least should be there, I guess.
Line: 530 to 532
 Comment -lines 116-129. You should mention GEANT used for the simulation somewhere.
Changed:
<
<
Response: I will do this but Brian can you indicate where is best to add it and what the best reference is?
>
>
Response: We have added a mention of the use of GEANT and a reference or GEANT at line 126 of the new version.
 
Comment -line 152. I don't understand "data MC sample." Is it maybe just a typo and should be "data sample?"
Line: 544 to 546
 Comment -line 182. Is there a reference for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test?
Changed:
<
<
Response: Pleae give me a reference for the KG test, Brian.
>
>
Response: We have added a reference for the KG test.
 
Comment -line 194. Fix the latex here.
Line: 571 to 573
 Comment -line 207-216. Give the gravitino mass, too. As it's written now, it looks like it would be decoupled, which certainly isn't what you mean.
Changed:
<
<
Response: Brian, what was the gravitino mass? 1 KeV??
>
>
Response: The gravitino mass was 1 KeV.
 
Comment -line 207-216. Mention FastSim, if you are using it (or GEANT if you are not).
Changed:
<
<
Response: Answer this Brian.
>
>
Response: We have added a mention of GEANT and a reference.
 
-line 221 "that are integrated over in the analysis" I don't understand this clause.
Changed:
<
<
Response: I am not sure what is integrated over myself. Can you clarify Brian?
>
>
Response: This phrase is confusing to us also. We have deleted the clause/
  type A
Line: 778 to 780
 

Changed:
<
<
Response: I removed part of the sentence referring to the many searches for the light top squarks.
>
>
Response: Since the other reader wanted references to other top squark searches I left this sentence in since it is the natural place to cite the other Atlas and MS searches.
 
Comment - l.9: I would remove "based on events with pairs of photons" since you discuss the final state later.

Revision 62017-06-04 - BradCox

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="STMProd"
-- BradCox - 2017-06-01
Line: 738 to 738
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: The sentence referred to has been reworded.
 
Comments - line 7-8: "in the electron+jets and muon+jets channels that require one or two photons in the final states":
Line: 746 to 746
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: something similar has replaced the phrase referred to.
 
1. Introduction
Line: 755 to 755
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: The early versions of this paper had such a diagram but it was removed at the suggestions of the CWRers since it was redundant with the text and too up room
 
Comment - l.2 : "theoretical option for avoiding" -->
"extension of the Standard Model that avoids"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - l.3: "hierarchy problem evident from the recent discovery" -->
I'm not sure that the recent discovery of the Higgs made the hierarchy problem evident.
Line: 770 to 771
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - l.6-8: I would remove this sentence ("Since such … LHC."). It's confusing and not needed.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: I removed part of the sentence referring to the many searches for the light top squarks.
 
Comment - l.9: I would remove "based on events with pairs of photons" since you discuss the final state later.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - l.10: "in data corresponding" -->
"in a dataset corresponding"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - l.15: remove "leading to photons in the final state." (it's obvious from the rest of the sentence)

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - l. 16: check spelling of "R-parity" (with or without hyphen)

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: R-parity is the traditional way to refer to this quantity. I have added a hyphen.
 
Comment - l. 16-18: I would remove the sentence "Assuming R-parity … at the LHC". It's not needed here.
Line: 813 to 814
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: I think the reference to R-parity is needed to justify the pair production. We would prefer to keep it.
 
Comment - l. 23-26: I don't understand this sentence. What about
Line: 821 to 822
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: We have rephrased the sentence in question.
 
Comment - l. 30: is "false photons" really an appropriate name?

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: We have deleted the phrase referring to "false photons" sine it was unncessary to label them at this point. But we have referred to such photons later in the text.
 
Comment - l. 32-35: I would not discuss the freely floating normalisation of ttj and ttgamma in the introduction (I only understood on l. 227 what you exactly mean). So I would remove the sentence on l. 32-35 "To reduce …. in pTmiss.".

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: I have deleted the sentence in question.
 
2. The CMS detector
Line: 848 to 850
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - l. 59: "PF-particles candidates" -->
I would suggest either "PF candidates" or "PF particles" (on l.64 you use "candidates")

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: I use PF candidates
 
Comment - l. 84: is the isolation cone for muons really 0.4? (not 0.3 for electrons) Why? Can you double check?

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: This is correct.
 
Comment - l. 88: I would remove "thereby increasing sensitivity to signal", since you are just talking about objects here.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
- l. 91: remove "for tagging" in this sentence.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
4. Analysis strategy
Line: 886 to 888
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
- l. 114-115: "jet component of the lepton + jets ttbar decays" -->
what about "jets from the top decays"?

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: - l. 117: "many selected photons"? What about saying "where selected photons may originate from"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment- l. 118 and l. 125: "lowest-order" -->
"leading order"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment- l. 129: shouldn't you mention that GEANT was used for the detector simulation?

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: A sentence is inserted stating this. Response 2: Brian, I need a reference for he version of GEANT you used.
 
Comment- l. 130: "correspond to small backgrounds" -->
"represent small backgrounds"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: This sentence has been changed due to other input from other reviewers such that the suggestion is no longer pertinent.
 
Comment- Table 1: in the last sentence of the caption you mention "fluctuating the template distributions by the syst uncert." It isn't clear what you mean here. I suggest to explain this in the text and shorten the caption.
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Brian, can you think of a clearer way to explain what was done?
 
Comments- Figure 1: these plots are used to determine the SF … but the ratios seem to be very close to 1 in the Z-region. Are the SF's already applied here?
Line: 937 to 940
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: The scale factor has already been applied. Response 2: Brain, I believe we already had this question before in the CWR. Am I correct. We should not this in the caption I think if it is true.
 
Comments- l. 158: "component" -->
"ingredient"?

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response:Done
 
Comments - l .170-173: unclear what you mean here. It only gets clear at l. 226. So I suggest to shorten or remove this sentence.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: We think both statements of this floating issue should be stated. The statement in 226 is couched in statistical language that may be less accessible to some of he readers.
 
Comments- l. 174: "provide an evaluation of the performance of the prediction" -->
maybe "allow us to validate the prediction"?

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comments- l. 181-182: unclear what you mean with "(1-d/b) percent uncertainty" … do you mean "fractional uncertainty"? Please rephrase.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: We have rephrased changing to "fractional uncertainty".
 
Comment - l. 182-185 and Fig. 2 (bottom): since you don't use CR2, I suggest you drop the plot of CR2 (fig. 2 bottom) and just argue that due to the limited
Line: 973 to 979
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: We prefer to keep the CR2 plot since it validates our non-use of it.
 
Comment- l. 187-188: please rephrase "signal region simulation of the distributions in ptmiss in the control region"
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Brian. I do not understand this sentence myself. Can yo suggest a rewriting of it that makes it clear what you did.
 
Comment - l. 189 and 190: "difference"… difference in what? I assume in pTmiss shape?
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: I think he is right but you have to read the new version of this paragraph to see if I modified it correctly.
 
Comment- l. 192: which distributions? … pTmiss?

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Yes, I have added ptmiss labels to the differences to make this clear.
 
Line: 1004 to 1010
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment- l. 198: "normalizations of cross sections affected by choices in PDF and factorization and normalization scales …
Line: 1012 to 1018
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment- l. 201: "obtained from" -->
"derived from"?

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - l. 202: the citations are partially missing here
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Brian, he means the references for b tagging, and photon efficiencies. Can you supply these referencesif theyar diffierent form referenes we have already in bib.tex
 
Comment - l. 209: I would suggest to change "m_ {top squark}" in to "m_{\tilde t}"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: The publication committee has designated m_top squark as the official nomenclature.
 
Comment - Table 2: caption: typo in "uncertainties"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Fixed
 
Comment - l. 214: "to force the strong production" -->
"so that the only relevant process is the production of ..."

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment- l. 225: "taken as syst. uncert. for both their upwards and downwards fluctuations" : please rephrase

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment- l. 226 - 228: "single +- 100% nuisance parameter": please rephrase this sentence in proper english.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: A attempt has been made.
 
Comment - l. 231: I would prefer that you quote the precise mass limits (corresponding to the highest and lowest LSP mass)
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Brian, I have taken a suggestion from Keith to quote a 750 GeV upper limit. Filip wants something else, precise numbers corresponding to the highest and lowest LSP mass. I am not sure what that means.
 
Comment - l. 231: "mass-exclusion contours" -->
"exclusion contours"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - Figure 4 caption: say "observed (top) and expected (bottom) upper limits"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Line: 1092 to 1101
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment - l. 238: be specific about which LSP mass these numbers correspond to
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Once again, Brian, I am not sure what he is referring to as LSP mass. Is he referring to the bino mass?
 
Comment - l. 240: drop this last sentence
Added:
>
>
Response: This as suggested by the LE and has not been objected to by the other CWR or FR. Do we want to fight?
  Comments Set 4

Revision 52017-06-04 - BradCox

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="STMProd"
-- BradCox - 2017-06-01
Line: 464 to 464
 
Changed:
<
<
Comments Set 2: Keith Ulner
>
>
Comments Set 2: Keith Ulmer
  type B
Line: 509 to 509
 

Changed:
<
<
Response: We tried positioning 93-95 st the beginning of section 3 but it fit better in our estimation in section 4 which has been
>
>
Response: We tried positioning 93-95 st the beginning of section 3 but it fits better in our estimation in section 4 which has been
 relabeled as Event selection and analysis.

Line: 517 to 517
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -lines 96-99. I'd move the sentence about the extra lepton veto to the end of this paragraph.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -lines 116-129. You should mention GEANT used for the simulation somewhere.
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: I will do this but Brian can you indicate where is best to add it and what the best reference is?
 
Comment -line 152. I don't understand "data MC sample." Is it maybe just a typo and should be "data sample?"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: yes, you are correct. Changed to just data.
 
Comment -line 182. Is there a reference for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test?
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Pleae give me a reference for the KG test, Brian.
 
Comment -line 194. Fix the latex here.
Added:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 205-206. The sentence with the reference to Table 2 should go at the end of the previous paragraph, i.e. at line 202.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 210. I guess "100% bino-like" is meant to signify that the decay is 100% to photon,gravitino. It would be better to also say that explicitly.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 207-216. Give the gravitino mass, too. As it's written now, it looks like it would be decoupled, which certainly isn't what you mean.
Line: 577 to 579
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Answer this Brian.
 
-line 221 "that are integrated over in the analysis" I don't understand this clause.
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: I am not sure what is integrated over myself. Can you clarify Brian?
  type A
Line: 593 to 595
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 2 remove "is considered to be"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 8 "still remain to be pursued" => "are worth pursuing"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 25 drop ", and an enhanced leptons+jets mode in tt decays." Or else rewrite that to make it more clear what the point is. I don't get what you mean as it is written now.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Dropped the unnecessary phrase.
 
Comment -line 30. "false photons" is a strange construction to me. I'd prefer "fake photons," but I'm guessing someone else has already asked to you to change from that. I leave this one up to you at this point.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: We deleted the reference to label "false photons" altogether to avoid the issue at this point.
 
Comment -line 59. "PF-particles" => "PF-particle"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 103 "photon candidates" => "photon candidate"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 118. I've never seen LO written as "lowest-order." I think "leading-order" is more common.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 151 "size of" => "statistics available for"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 156 "to each" => "for each"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 164 "distribution" => "shape"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: This choice of "distribution" verses "shape" was imposed by the language editor. I prefer shape myself so I will make the change.
 
Comment -Fig. 1 caption "(c) has" => "(c) shows"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 181-182 "(1-Data/Background) percent" => "fractional"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: The explicit formulae was suggested in the CWR. I have changed "percentage" to "fractional"
 
Comment -line 183. Probably don't need so many significant figures in the 0.6575 number.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Reduce to two significant figures.
 
Comment -line 184. "determine uncertainty" => "determine an uncertainty"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 224 "form" => "shape"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Same remark as before. A language editor choice. I will change back to"shape".
 
Comment -line 231 "smaller" => "less stringent"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment -line 232 consider adding "with exclusions up to 750 GeV in stop mass."

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Added exclusion remark.
 
Added:
>
>
*************************************************************************************************
 
Added:
>
>
 
Changed:
<
<
Comments Set 3
>
>
Comments Set 3  Filip Moortgat

Title: fine

Abstract:

Comment: - First sentence: I suggest to stop the sentence after "and the gravitino as the lightest SUSY particle". The rest is not needed in the abstract, I believe.

Response:

Comments - line 7-8: "in the electron+jets and muon+jets channels that require one or two photons in the final states": I suggest to replace this with "in final states containing an electron or a muon, jets, and one or two photons" or similar.

Response:

1. Introduction

Comment - I would suggest to add a (feyman-like) diagram of the simplified model that you are targeting.

Response:

Comment - l.2 : "theoretical option for avoiding" --> "extension of the Standard Model that avoids"

Response:

Comment - l.3: "hierarchy problem evident from the recent discovery" --> I'm not sure that the recent discovery of the Higgs made the hierarchy problem evident. What about "hierarchy problem, which became particularly relevant since the recent discovery" or similar.

Response:

Comment - l.6-8: I would remove this sentence ("Since such … LHC."). It's confusing and not needed.

Response:

Comment - l.9: I would remove "based on events with pairs of photons" since you discuss the final state later.

Response:

Comment - l.10: "in data corresponding" --> "in a dataset corresponding"

Response:

Comment - l.15: remove "leading to photons in the final state." (it's obvious from the rest of the sentence)

Response:

Comment - l. 16: check spelling of "R-parity" (with or without hyphen)

Response:

Comment - l. 16-18: I would remove the sentence "Assuming R-parity … at the LHC". It's not needed here. I would directly say "In this analysis we focus on pair production of top squarks, where each top squark decays to a top quark and a neutralino, which in turns decays to a photon and a neutralino."

Response:

Comment - l. 23-26: I don't understand this sentence. What about "The analysis concentrates on the semileptonic decay of the ttbar pair and therefore requires the presence of ..." and stopping the sentence after "gamma+jet backgrounds." (on l. 25).

Response:

Comment - l. 30: is "false photons" really an appropriate name?

Response:

Comment - l. 32-35: I would not discuss the freely floating normalisation of ttj and ttgamma in the introduction (I only understood on l. 227 what you exactly mean). So I would remove the sentence on l. 32-35 "To reduce …. in pTmiss.".

Response:

2. The CMS detector

fine.

3. Event and object reconstruction

Comment - l. 58: "Objects in the event" --> "All physics objects ..."

Response:

Comment - l. 59: "PF-particles candidates" --> I would suggest either "PF candidates" or "PF particles" (on l.64 you use "candidates")

Response:

Comment - l. 84: is the isolation cone for muons really 0.4? (not 0.3 for electrons) Why? Can you double check?

Response:

Comment - l. 88: I would remove "thereby increasing sensitivity to signal", since you are just talking about objects here.

Response:

- l. 91: remove "for tagging" in this sentence.

Response:

4. Analysis strategy

- l. 93-95: you mention the trigger thresholds here, but you do not discuss the trigger efficiency (100% I guess, but you should say that). Also, since this is the section where you outline the analysis strategy, it's worth to repeat that the offline cuts on electrons and muons are 30 GeV.

Response:

- l. 114-115: "jet component of the lepton + jets ttbar decays" --> what about "jets from the top decays"?

Response:

Comment: - l. 117: "many selected photons"? What about saying "where selected photons may originate from"

Response:

Comment- l. 118 and l. 125: "lowest-order" --> "leading order"

Response:

Comment- l. 129: shouldn't you mention that GEANT was used for the detector simulation?

Response:

Comment- l. 130: "correspond to small backgrounds" --> "represent small backgrounds"

Response:

Comment- Table 1: in the last sentence of the caption you mention "fluctuating the template distributions by the syst uncert." It isn't clear what you mean here. I suggest to explain this in the text and shorten the caption.

Response:

Comments- Figure 1: these plots are used to determine the SF … but the ratios seem to be very close to 1 in the Z-region. Are the SF's already applied here? Can you clarify?

Response:

Comments- l. 158: "component" --> "ingredient"?

Response:

Comments - l .170-173: unclear what you mean here. It only gets clear at l. 226. So I suggest to shorten or remove this sentence.

Response:

Comments- l. 174: "provide an evaluation of the performance of the prediction" --> maybe "allow us to validate the prediction"?

Response:

Comments- l. 181-182: unclear what you mean with "(1-d/b) percent uncertainty" … do you mean "fractional uncertainty"? Please rephrase.

Response:

Comment - l. 182-185 and Fig. 2 (bottom): since you don't use CR2, I suggest you drop the plot of CR2 (fig. 2 bottom) and just argue that due to the limited number of events in CR2, you decided to use an alternative method to determine the uncertainty on SR2.

Response:

Comment- l. 187-188: please rephrase "signal region simulation of the distributions in ptmiss in the control region"

Response:

Comment - l. 189 and 190: "difference"… difference in what? I assume in pTmiss shape?

Response:

Comment- l. 192: which distributions? … pTmiss?

Response:

5. Results and interpretation

Comment- l. 194: fix latex label

Response:

Comment- l. 198: "normalizations of cross sections affected by choices in PDF and factorization and normalization scales … " --> I would just say by "by PDF and scale uncertainties"

Response:

Comment- l. 201: "obtained from" --> "derived from"?

Response:

Comment - l. 202: the citations are partially missing here

Response:

Comment - l. 209: I would suggest to change "m_ {top squark}" in to "m_{\tilde t}"

Response:

Comment - Table 2: caption: typo in "uncertainties"

Response:

Comment - l. 214: "to force the strong production" --> "so that the only relevant process is the production of ..."

Response:

Comment- l. 225: "taken as syst. uncert. for both their upwards and downwards fluctuations" : please rephrase

Response:

Comment- l. 226 - 228: "single +- 100% nuisance parameter": please rephrase this sentence in proper english.

Response:

Comment - l. 231: I would prefer that you quote the precise mass limits (corresponding to the highest and lowest LSP mass)

Response:

Comment - l. 231: "mass-exclusion contours" -->
"exclusion contours"

Response:

Comment - Figure 4 caption: say "observed (top) and expected (bottom) upper limits"

Response:

6 Summary

Comment - l. 236: "distribution in" --> "distribution of"

Response:

Comment - l. 238: be specific about which LSP mass these numbers correspond to

Response:

Comment - l. 240: drop this last sentence
  Comments Set 4

Revision 42017-06-04 - BradCox

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="STMProd"
-- BradCox - 2017-06-01
Line: 458 to 458
  Response: Sasha, can you fix Figure 4 replacing the symbols by top squarks and fix the boldface issue.
Added:
>
>
******************************************************************************************************************************************************

 
Changed:
<
<
Comments Set 2
>
>
Comments Set 2: Keith Ulner

type B

Introduction. Are there other relevant searches that you should be citing?

Response: Waiting on Brian to give me a set of references.

Comment -line 16. I don't understand the connection between R parity and strong production. Maybe just drop the "Assuming that R parity is conserved" clause?

Response: The R parity connection is with "pair production", not strong interaction.

Comment: -line 32-35 This sentence is not so clear to me. Perhaps restructure it to say the following. "The normalization of the XXXXXXX background(s) are allowed to float freely in the fit, which helps avoid uncertainty in the tt+jets, tt+gamma, and tt+gamma,gamma production cross sections."

Response: The sentence in question has been restructured. Response 2: You had better check this modified sentence Brian.

Comment -line 58. There's something wrong in the parenthetical list. muons and photons at least should be there, I guess.

Response: Done

Comment -line 66. Should add a reference to something for the photon ID.

Response: Reference 27 for photon reconstruction and ID is a line or two later in the text

Comment -lines 93-95 on the trigger would fit better at the beginning of Sec. 3.

Response: We tried positioning 93-95 st the beginning of section 3 but it fit better in our estimation in section 4 which has been relabeled as Event selection and analysis.

Comment -lines 96-99. Say explicitly that one lepton is required here.

Response:

Comment -lines 96-99. I'd move the sentence about the extra lepton veto to the end of this paragraph.

Response:

Comment -lines 116-129. You should mention GEANT used for the simulation somewhere.

Response:

Comment -line 152. I don't understand "data MC sample." Is it maybe just a typo and should be "data sample?"

Response:

Comment -line 182. Is there a reference for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test?

Response:

Comment -line 194. Fix the latex here.

Comment -line 205-206. The sentence with the reference to Table 2 should go at the end of the previous paragraph, i.e. at line 202.

Response:

Comment -line 210. I guess "100% bino-like" is meant to signify that the decay is 100% to photon,gravitino. It would be better to also say that explicitly.

Response:

Comment -line 207-216. Give the gravitino mass, too. As it's written now, it looks like it would be decoupled, which certainly isn't what you mean.

Response: Brian, what was the gravitino mass? 1 KeV??

Comment -line 207-216. Mention FastSim, if you are using it (or GEANT if you are not).

Response:

-line 221 "that are integrated over in the analysis" I don't understand this clause.

Response:

type A

Comment -abstract line 3 rewrite as "...with a bono-like neutralino as the next-to-lightest SUSY particle." There is more than one neutralino, so writing "the neutralino" doesn't seem right to me.

Response:

Comment -line 2 remove "is considered to be"

Response:

Comment -line 8 "still remain to be pursued" => "are worth pursuing"

Response:

Comment -line 25 drop ", and an enhanced leptons+jets mode in tt decays." Or else rewrite that to make it more clear what the point is. I don't get what you mean as it is written now.

Response:

Comment -line 30. "false photons" is a strange construction to me. I'd prefer "fake photons," but I'm guessing someone else has already asked to you to change from that. I leave this one up to you at this point.

Response:

Comment -line 59. "PF-particles" => "PF-particle"

Response:

Comment -line 103 "photon candidates" => "photon candidate"

Response:

Comment -line 118. I've never seen LO written as "lowest-order." I think "leading-order" is more common.

Response:

Comment -line 151 "size of" => "statistics available for"

Response:

Comment -line 156 "to each" => "for each"

Response:

Comment -line 164 "distribution" => "shape"

Response:

Comment -Fig. 1 caption "(c) has" => "(c) shows"

Response:

Comment -line 181-182 "(1-Data/Background) percent" => "fractional"

Response:

Comment -line 183. Probably don't need so many significant figures in the 0.6575 number.

Response:

Comment -line 184. "determine uncertainty" => "determine an uncertainty"

Response:

Comment -line 224 "form" => "shape"

Response:

Comment -line 231 "smaller" => "less stringent"

Response:

Comment -line 232 consider adding "with exclusions up to 750 GeV in stop mass."

Response:

  Comments Set 3

Revision 32017-06-03 - BradCox

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="STMProd"
-- BradCox - 2017-06-01
Line: 104 to 104
 Not sure what you are saying here…could you please clarify? How is this different from what you just said?
Changed:
<
<
Response: ???
>
>
Response: the phrase you point out is redundant and has been removed.
 
Comment: L27
Line: 115 to 115
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L30
Line: 123 to 123
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 

Line: 151 to 151
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Sentence has been reworked to address the suggestions.
 
Comment: L78
Line: 161 to 161
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L83-85
Line: 173 to 173
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L85
Line: 184 to 184
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L88
Line: 194 to 194
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L90
Line: 204 to 204
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
4. Analysis strategy
Line: 218 to 218
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: We have changed the name of the section as suggested. We considered moving the trigger requirements for electrons and muons to the previous section but it did not seem to fit there since that deals with object reconstruction not even selection.
 
Comment: L103
Line: 228 to 229
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L106
Line: 238 to 239
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L107
Line: 248 to 249
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L108
Line: 256 to 257
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Unnecessary phrase removed.
 
Comment: L116 - I don't see anything about GEANT being used to simulate the detector.
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Brian, can you see where to add the role of GEANT in simulating the detector for these MC simulations?
 
Comment: L130
Line: 271 to 272
  It is odd to say that something “small†originates from something that is “negligible†. This does not sound consistent. How about
Changed:
<
<
“In the muon+jets channel, the background from Z+jets and Z+gamma events is very small [negligible], because of the low probability for a muon to be misidentified as a photon. In the electron+jets channel, however, these processes contribute more to the background, especially at low pTmiss, because the probability for an electron to be misidentified as a photon is much higher.â€
>
>
“In the muon+jets channel, the background from Z+jets and Z+gamma events is very small [negligible], becaus of the low probability for a muon to be misidentified as a photon. In the electron+jets channel, however, these processes contribute more to the background, especially at low pTmiss, because the probability for an electron to be misidentified as a photon is much higher.â€
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: The sentences have been revised as suggested
 
Comment: L145
Line: 285 to 286
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 

Line: 296 to 297
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L156
Line: 306 to 307
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: Table 1 caption
Line: 317 to 318
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Suggested changes on caption made.
 
Comment: Figure 1 caption
Line: 329 to 330
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: The caption has been reworded to make plane c description clearer
 
Comment: L181
Line: 337 to 338
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: The formula was suggested by the CWR reviewers . Attempts at a statement of what was done were relatively clumsy compared to a simple formula.
 
5. Results and interpretation
Line: 348 to 350
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Latex fixed
 
L196
Line: 358 to 360
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L202
Line: 371 to 373
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Commnent: L204
Line: 381 to 383
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: ***L207 I don't see anything about whether FastSim or FullSim was used here. Was this privately generated MC?
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Brian, what did you use for MC?
 
Comment: L208
Line: 396 to 398
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Removed comma
 
Comment: L209
Line: 404 to 406
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Not completely sure what is suggested here. We were told by the Pub chair to use top squark to refer to stops rather than symbols for stops in this paper. This was indicated as standard procedure.
 
Comment: L213
Line: 413 to 416
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: Table 2 caption - "unceraintie" -> "uncertainties"

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: Table 3 In expressions like "(460, 175)" need a space after the comma.

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment; L227
Line: 435 to 438
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Done
 
Comment: L230-L232
Line: 443 to 446
 

Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: It was thought that the captions and the plots were sufficient to explain with the conclusions as stated.
 
Comment: Figure 4
Line: 452 to 455
 Some symbols seem to be in boldface and others not. I don't see a reason why.
Changed:
<
<
Response:
>
>
Response: Sasha, can you fix Figure 4 replacing the symbols by top squarks and fix the boldface issue.
  Comments Set 2

Revision 22017-06-03 - BradCox

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="STMProd"
-- BradCox - 2017-06-01
Changed:
<
<
Comments Set 1
>
>
Comments Set 1 Jeff Richman
 
Added:
>
>
Title: Search for natural supersymmetry in events with top quark pairs and photos in pp collisions at sqrt s = 8 TeV

Fine!

Comment: Abstract

Results are presented from a search for natural gauge-mediated supersymmetry in a scenario in which the top squark is the lightest squark, the next-to-lightest SUSY particle is a bino-like neutralino, and the lightest SUSY particle is the gravitino. The strong production of top squark pairs can produce events with pairs of top quarks and neutralinos, with each neutralino decaying into a photon and a gravitino. The search is performed using a sample of pp collision data accumulated by the CMS experiment at sqrt s = 8 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 fb^{-1}. The final state consists of a lepton (an electron or muon), jets, and one or two photons. The imbalance in the transverse momentum in the events is compared with expected spectrum from standard model processes. No excess event yield is observed above the expected background, and the result is interpreted in the context of a general model of gauge-mediated SUSY breaking, leading to the exclusion of top squark masses below 650—750 GeV.

-In the original version, the phrase “gravitino as the lightest SUSY particle with a bino-like mixing of the neutralino, the next-to-lightest SUSY particle,†seems hard to read.

- In the original version, a comma is definitely needed after “19.7 fb^{-1}†. Otherwise, the sentence implies that this lumi applies channel by channel. Having both the data sample and the signature in a single sentence seems like too much.

- In the original version, the phrase “gauge-mediated SUSY breaking that leads to the exclusion†is grammatically fine, but I think it isn’t quite the meaning that you want. I think there should be a looser connection between the model and the result.

Response: The wording of the abstract is changed as suggested.

1. Introduction

Comment: L6 ***Suggest changing “and the lightest Higgsino […]†to “and the Higgsinos […]â€

As far as I know (e.g., Papucci et al.) all four Higgsinos are expected to be light in natural SUSY. In fact, in the limit that they are pure Higgsino, they are mass degenerate.

Response: Done

Comment: L6-L8 ***I am not sure that I am following the logic of this sentence. It seems to say start with a theoretical motivation and the says that this indicates that there are many searches left to be done at the LHC. To me these are two separately true statements, but the first one does not imply the second one. Also, why are you referring to the little hierarchy problem here, whereas previously you referred to the hierarchy problem?

Here is a suggestion:

In such SUSY scenarios, the fine-tuning required to maintain low mass of the electroweak scale can be avoided, and many searches for light top squarks are being pursued at the CERN LHC.

I have changed the meaning of the last part of the sentence, and here I think that it would be appropriate to reference the top squark searches from ATLAS and CMS more broadly. Our papers allow reinterpretation in different models, so my guess is that their results could be relevant to this case as well.

Response: We have changed the wording.

Response 2: Brian can you look if some appropriate references for top squark searches form ATLAS and CMS and give them to me to enter. I think you already did a search.

Comment: L15

that decays to a photon and a gravitino leading to photons in the final state. → suggest that decays to a photon and a gravitino, leading to photons in the final state.

Response: Done

Comment: L18

“Furthermore, if the top squark is the only colored particle sufficiently light to be produced at the LHC, SUSY production would proceed through pair production of top squarks.â€

***This is OK, but I don’t see why you need to go this far…if there were other colored SUSY particles light enough to be produced, you would still have top squark pair production. And natural SUSY certainly allows other light-ish colored particles (~t_2, ~b_L, and ~g). The structure of the paragraph controlled by the fact that you start with the neutralino and gravitino and don’t explain the SUSY production process until the end of the paragraph. So I think that the key role of the sentence here is to state the actual production process assumed — you don’t need to assume that it is the only SUSY production process. How about

“Because top squarks are expected to be relatively light in natural SUSY scenarios, we search for top squark pair production, a strong process. [Then as before] Assuming a bino-like NLSP, each top squark would decay to a top quark and a neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to a photon and a gravitino, leading to a ttbar + gamma gamma + pTmiss topology.â€

Response: Done

Comment: L23 …final state of the ttbar pair that requires the presence → suggest …final state of the ttbar pair, which requires the presence of

To me, this makes more sense as a non-restrictive clause.

Response: Done

Comment: L25 ***“and an enhanced lepton+jets mode in ttbar decays.†Not sure what you are saying here…could you please clarify? How is this different from what you just said?

Response: ???

Comment: L27 “that depend on the presence of one or two selected photons in the event†→ suggest “, depending on the presence of one or two selected photons in the eventâ€

Response:

Comment: L30 You define "false photons" on L105, so I don’t see why you also need to do that here. I would just end the sentence at “requirements.â€

Response:

2. The CMS detector

Fine.

3. Event and object reconstruction

Comment: L66 “and have transverse momentum†→ “and to have transverse momentum†[need parallel grammar]

The structure of this sentence is a bit odd. It looks like a 3-time list, but “and†appears twice. How about

“Photons are reconstructed… , are required to be …, and must have…†or “Photons are reconstructed . They are required to be isolated…and to have [no comma].â€

Response:

Comment: L78 “and be†→ “and to beâ€

Response:

Comment: L83-85 problem with parallel structure

“are required to have pT>30 GeV, be within …, and have…†→ “are required to have pT>30 GeV, to be within…, and to have…â€

Response:

Comment: L85 The phrase “are used to identify extra leptons used to veto…†is repetitive. Suggest “are applied to identify extra leptons that are used to veto…â€

Response:

Comment: L88 “thereby increasing sensitivity to signal.†→ “thereby increasing the signal sensitivity.â€

Response:

Comment: L90 “The efficiency of selection is about…†→ “The selection efficiency is about…

Response:

4. Analysis strategy

Maybe this section should be called “Event selection and analysis strategy†?


The section starts off with a very detailed discussion of triggers, lepton requirements, and photon requirements. It doesn’t seem like a “strategy†discussion. I think it could be useful to have a 1-2 sentence overview.

There is a discussion of the trigger pT thresholds for the leptons, but the offline cuts are given in the previous section. Seems a bit odd.

Response:

Comment: L103 “…more than one photon candidates†→ “…at least two photon candidatesâ€

Response:

Comment: L106 “that are used to define two control regions†→ “and are used to define two control regionsâ€

Response:

Comment: L107 “one false and no genuine photons passing all requirements†→ ??? “one false and no genuine photonsâ€

Response:

Comment: L108 “passing all requirements†- again this seems redundant. Or am I missing something?

Response:

Comment: L116 - I don't see anything about GEANT being used to simulate the detector.

Response:

Comment: L130 “The Z+jets and Z+gamma events correspond to small backgrounds in the muon+jets channel originating from the negligible misidentification of muons as photons.â€

It is odd to say that something “small†originates from something that is “negligible†. This does not sound consistent. How about

“In the muon+jets channel, the background from Z+jets and Z+gamma events is very small [negligible], because of the low probability for a muon to be misidentified as a photon. In the electron+jets channel, however, these processes contribute more to the background, especially at low pTmiss, because the probability for an electron to be misidentified as a photon is much higher.â€

Response:

Comment: L145 “estimate in the number of Z bosons†→ “estimate of the number of Z bosonsâ€

Response:

Comment: L146 “to obtain a second scale factor SFegamma to correct the misidentification of electrons as photons†→ “to obtain a second scale factor, SFegamma, which corrects the MC prediction for the rate of misidentificaiton of electrons as photonsâ€

Response:

Comment: L156 “each of these SF are listed in Table 1†→ “each of these scale factors are listed in Table 1â€

Response:

Comment: Table 1 caption

“Scale factors,…, normalizing Z+jets… backgrounds†→ “Measured values of the scale factors SFx and SFy, which are used to correct the Monte Carlo predictions for….â€

Response:

Comment: Figure 1 caption

***I am confused about the wording “and (c) has the result of the fit for SF…†Maybe “has†should be “as†? But the overall wording is awkward. I suggest splitting the discussion of the fit as a separate sentence.

Response:

Comment: L181 ***The formula “(1-Data/Background) is awkward. Is there are better way to do this? Do you even need this?

Response:

5. Results and interpretation

Comment: L194 there is some stray text here: “labelInterpretation†.

Response:

L196 “and assumed to be†→ “and are assumed to beâ€

Response:

Comment: L202 The list here is awkward, because there is a sub-list, but only commas are used. Suggest ended sentence after “in MC scale factors.†Then start a new sentence

“These include b tagging; electron, muon, and photon identification; and trigger efficiency.â€

So now you can use the ; for the main list and , for the sublist. This is standard.

Response:

Commnent: L204 “shown in Fig. 3†→ “as shown in Fig. 3â€

Response:

Comment: ***L207 I don't see anything about whether FastSim or FullSim was used here. Was this privately generated MC?

Response:

Comment: L208 no comma before “and NLO cross sectionsâ€

Response:

Comment: L209 a bit odd to see “top squark†written out as text rather than as a symbol. Why not introduce the symbol in the Intro and use it?

Response:

Comment: L213 “are decoupled by setting them to very large masses to force…†
→ “are decoupled by setting their masses to very large values. [then start a new sentence]

Response:

Comment: Table 2 caption - "unceraintie" -> "uncertainties"

Response:

Comment: Table 3 In expressions like "(460, 175)" need a space after the comma.

Response:

Comment; L227 Need to make sure that +- doesn’t separate from 100. Can put the whole thing in math mode.

Response:

Comment: L230-L232 It is odd that you do not make any observations or comments about Fig. 4 and Fig. 5.

Response:

Comment: Figure 4 The symbol ~t is used in the figure but not in the text. Actually, it is sometimes used in the figure (in the decay description) and sometimes not (in the inequalities). We need to be consistent in the notation. Note also the x-axis label and the figure caption.

Some symbols seem to be in boldface and others not. I don't see a reason why.

Response:

 Comments Set 2
Added:
>
>
 Comments Set 3
Added:
>
>
 Comments Set 4

Revision 12017-06-01 - BradCox

Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="STMProd"
-- BradCox - 2017-06-01

Comments Set 1

Comments Set 2

Comments Set 3

Comments Set 4

 
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