Comments and responses to TOP-11-028

Temporal updated draft:

Comment 001 (Ulrich Heintz) I have read your paper for the statistics committee. Below please find my comments concerning the statistical treatment and other aspects of the paper. Congratulaions to a nice paper.

line 21: "Since we expect B(t->Zq) to be small, we look for...." I do not understand the logic here: Why would you choose using a decay channel with a small branching fraction BECAUSE you expect the signal to be small? I have no problem with your choice but the causal connection between the two implied by the word "Since" makes no sense to me. Reword?

===> Changed to: We expect ... small and look for ...

line 99: the plural of vertex is vertices, not vertexes

===> done

Table 1: I do not understand your statistical uncertainties here. Do they characterize a statistical uncertainty in the determination of the expected number of events (eg from MC statistics) or do they characterize the statistical fluctuations expected in the observed number of events? It seems they are simply the square root of the number of expected events and thus the latter seems to be true. If yes, then I think it would be best to remove these uncertainties from the table and understand the numbers as giving the expected number of background events. The sqrt(N) approach runs aground when N becomes small and you can see this in the second column where your stat error is larger than the expected number of events and allows even a negative number of events, which is unphysical. I think we can expect a reader to know that the observed number of events will be from a Poisson distribution with the quoted mean. ==> Checking error in Table 1.

==> Concerning some of the other errors mentioned below. The errors for the data-driven WW/WZ/ZZ estimates are from Poisson sqrt(N) for the observed number of events originally calculated for the HT_S based selection. In a second step, the HT_S estimate was scaled to get the equivalent estimate for the b-tag based selection. Therefore, the error in the b-tag selection is just a*sqrt(N), where "a" is the ratio of acceptances between the two selections .

More information: The central value for the WW/WZ/ZZ estimates was found to be the same between the data-driven method and those obtained from simulated events for both selections. The uncertainty for the MC estimate was larger due to the limitations for MC statistics.

line 105: you cannot measure missing energy with CMS. You can only measure missing transverse momentum. In general you treat energy and momentum inconsistently in your paper. I think this needs to be cleaned up before publication.

===> old line 88 changed: The jets and the missing transverse energy vector ($-\Sigma \vec{p}_{{\rm T}}$) and its magnitude ($\met$) are reconstructed using a particle flow technique.

units: you use units of GeV for energy, GeV/c for momentum, GeV/c^2 for mass. If you want to maintain this then you need to insert some c's into the equation before line 115. Here you have terms like E^2-p^2 which should be E^2c^2-p^2 for example. Line 108 has another expression that is unit-challenged. So you need to either use natural units or keep track of all the c's.

===> Now using natural units; set c=1.

definition of missing ET: you also choose to give missing ET dimensions of energy. But missing ET only makes sense as a momentum. I assume you would define transverse energy as E*sin(theta) and transverse momentum as p*sin(theta). When you compute missing ET you better add up p*sin(theta) and not E*sin(theta) because there is no physical law that requires the latter to be conserved. Thus missing ET makes only sense if it is a momentum. Therefore you should give it units of momentum. I would also call it missing pT. However since it is common practice to call it missing ET I won't insist on that but you need to define it and you have to change the term missing energy on line 105 which is definitely wrong.

===> look at new version, definition of vector and scalar MET now included.

line 108: for the jets do you use transverse energy (as in E*sin(theta)) or transverse momentum (as in p*sin(theta))? These two are not the same for jets.

===> We use PFJets which is based on CaloJet w/o overlapped to other objects, with energy scaling further applied

line 118: In events where --> In events in which

===> done

line 118/119: here is another energy momentum mixup. pz is a momentum and therefore calling it energetic is not the right word. I would change this sentence to "In events in which there are two possible solutions for pz the solution with the smaller magnitude of pz is taken. Studies with ... show that this solution is the correct one..."

===> done

Table 2. I assume that these efficiencies are in %. Please specify in the caption or behind the numbers.

===> Signal selection efficiency for each three-lepton channel in percent.

line 134: Don't start a sentence with a symbol ("mZj and mWb..."). This can be fixed by connecting the sentence with the previous one by replacing the period after GeV with a comma.

===> done

line 147: remove "top quark" after mZj.

===> done

line 158: Here I again do not understand your statistical uncertainties. In one case (HTS selection) it seems to be close to sqrt(N) but in the other (b-tag selection) it is clearly much smaller than that.

===> The background estimation is based on HTS selection and extrapolate to the b-tag selection. The b-tagging uncertainties are embedded in the statistics. More details above.

line 163: events where --> events in which

===> done

line 187 giving a --> to give a

===> done

section 7: Are your selections defined to be exclusive? That is can an event be selected by one or the other but not by both? This doesn't seem to be the case which is unfortunate because it would have made it easy to combine the two limits. Why did you not combine them?

===> It is because the jets selection schemes fo HTS and b-tagged are different which makes it difficult to combine the two limits. That's why we chose to list both. Also one can have an apple-to-apple comparison to the previous searches (Atlas).

Table 3: here again it seems that the statistical uncertainties quoted are inconsistent. Can you explain how you obtain them and what you do with them? Do they enter the limit computation?

===> The background estimation is obtained from data-driven (tt + DY) and MC with scaling to data (WZ/ZZ) for HTS. It's further scaled to b-tagged method with known b-taggs SFs (including corresponding errors). That's why you see a much smaller error for the later case.

section 8: now here you state that you set an upper limit on the BR of 0.28% (same in the abstract). Why are you quoting only this value and not the value obtained from the HTS selection? Note that it would be wrong to quote just the smaller of the two observed limits here. This would no longer be a 95% CL limit. You have to either combine the two values or design a decision mechanism that picks the limit to quote as your final limit that is not based on the data. You could for example choose the limit from the selection that gives you the best expected limit. This happens to be the b-tag selection. Of course even the procedure has to be chosen before looking at the data. So I hope this has been your plan all along and you just forgot to explain this here. Please add this to the conclusion.

===> The choice is indeed based on the best 'expected limit' from the two methods. The central value and one sigma bounds of the expected limits are already listed in the text.

-- YuanChao - 28-May-2012

Comment 002 (Marc Baarmand)

Nice analysis! The paper however needs a bit of work; it could be better arranged and a few places need clarification. I will not bother with trivial English issues as I figure there will be a FR (too many commas!) My comments are based on TOP-11-028-paper-v4.

Abstract, first sentence: ‘… neutral currents in top quark decays t->Zq in events with a topology …’

===> done

Abstract, last sentence: ‘A t->Zq branching fraction larger than…’

===> done

Lines 2-3: These two sentences are unnecessary and too pedagogical for a paper of this nature, remove. I would start the introduction with ‘The top quark decays into a W boson and a b quark, t->Wb, with a branching fraction approaching 100%.......’

===> done

Line 15: ‘… a B(t->Zq) limit of 3.7%....’

===> done

Line 17: ‘…twenty times larger than that at the…’

===> done

Line 19: ‘… result in a B(t->Zq) upper limit of…’

===> done

Line 21 and many other places: ‘… ttbar -> Zq + Wb -> llq + lnb events.’ I’d use llq rather llj as you are stating the final state particles and not the corresponding experimental objects, for example you leave b quark as b and not j.

===> done

Line 31: ‘… where eta….. and theta….’

===> done

Lines 40-46: This paragraph is out of place here, I suggest you move it to Line 98.

===> done

Line 54: remove ‘In addition’

===> done

Line 87: ‘… for Z -> l+l*(W -> ln)…’

===> done

Line 92: ‘… proton-proton interactions (pile-up events)…’ since you use this word in Table 4.

===> done, but in line 88.

Line 101: ‘… less than 100 three-lepton…’ number of events better in numbers than words

===> done

Line 102: ‘The Drell-Yan entry in Table 1…’ as in Table 1; no need for l+l-

===> done

Line 104: add sentence ‘The details of the background estimations are discussed in Section 5.’

===> done

Table 1: stat errors are large for Drell-Yan, making it compatible with zero! You are using data for this estimation, is there a statistics problem?!

===> This is from MC. We've used all the available statistics.

Table 1: the eee and eemu entries for ttbar are identical – is this correct?!

===> Due to rounding.

Table 1 caption: ‘… the basic selection, which includes the trigger, …. and missing transverse energy requirement.’

===> done

Line 105: ‘Figure 1 shows the distributions of …’

===> done

Line 106: the symbol used for scalar sum of transverse energy could be simpler e.g ‘H_T’ without the ‘S’ – I don’t see any significance to ‘S’ in this symbol as long as the quantity is clearly defined as the scalar sum.

===> The S stands for signal as only candidate daughter objects used in the scalar sum. (changing to S_T in new version)

Line 107: ‘… veto, missing transverse energy, and the additional requirement of two or more jets.’

===> done

Fig 1 caption: ‘… the reconstructed transverse mass of the W boson candidate…’ and ‘… the data are represented …’

===> done

Line 117: ‘If the discriminant is found …’ what is this sentence about?!

===> this sentence is describing what we do when the term inside the sqrt (that is the discriminant) is negative and therefore unphysical.

Line 121: ‘We add the requirements on …’

===> done

Line 125: ‘… with the decay of a b quark.’ If use heavy flavor then c quark is also included!

===> done

Line 126: ‘… second one is the more sensitive…’

===> done

Line 128: ‘Table 2 shows the estimates of the signal efficiency determined from simulated events.’

===> done

Table 2 caption: ‘… decaying W and Z bosons passing the selection.’ also ‘The simulated events used to calculate these efficiencies are weighted such that the trigger and reconstruction efficiencies, and the distribution of reconstructed vertices observed…’

===> done

Line 131: ‘… the reconstruction if it does not point to the same vertex, but there is no…’

===> done

Line 133: ‘A selected event has at least two jets with pT>30 GeV.’ It is better to remind the reader of the pt cut.

===> done

Question: why not have Z and jets association! Don’t leave the reader guessing, explain why.

===> leptons of Z daughters are required to be from the primary vertex (PV). The HT_s selection described in section 4.1 relies on the fact that the charged constitutes of a candidate Jet not from PV are removed in the PFJet algorithm as we set PF_noPU, while the b-tag selection does require an explicit requirement ans stated in section 4.2

Line 135: ‘… the reconstructed ttbar pair that has the largest…’

===> done

Question: why so? Give the reason for this choice.

===> From MC study, most of the ttbar events are back-to-back in azimuthal projection. (figure in review twiki) This method gives best correctness of the ttbar candidates. It can also presev the mass distribution of the top from artificial peaking.

Line 138: ‘… and the HT_S requirements.’

===> done

Line 142: ‘To further reduce…’

===> done

Line 143: ‘… be at least two jets, one of which is a b jet.’ If this is what is meant here – or you mean 3 jets!

===> done

Lines 144-146: generally the efficiency depends on pT, so you need to mention that these are numbers for the jet pTs in this analysis. also, useful to mention what the actual discriminator values used is – if the reader bothers to look it up in ref 20.

===> added the expected values for pT=30 to 100 GeV which is the relevant range for us.

Line 147; ‘… top quark mass is required…’

===> done

Line 151: again ‘least two jets, one of which is a b jet’ or ‘least three jets, one of which is a b jet’.

===> done

Fig 2: should use the same legend ‘WW/WZ/ZZ’ or ‘VV’ everywhere!

===> now using ‘WW/WZ/ZZ’ everywhere

Fig 2 caption: ‘heavy flavor jet’ -> ‘b jet’, otherwise c jet is also included. ‘The data are …’

===> done

Lines 157-161: I would put these numbers in a table; much easier to follow and compare.

===> done

Line 162: ‘… due to the requirement of minimum 3o GeV of missing transverse energy .’ It is good to give the cut value again to make it easy for the reader.

===> done

Lines 166-172: I would include more details of how these two samples are selected; the differences are given in a qualitative way – not super useful.

===> we already think it is to much information... if anything will reduce it not expand it.

Line 184: mention ‘pile-up’ again this is what used in Table 4.

===> done

Line 192: ‘… events from the SM background…’

===> done

Line 200: ‘ … branching fraction…’

===> done

Line 204: ‘… three-lepton analyses.’ Remove the rest of the line.

===> done

Summary: I would do all in present tense; so

Line 210: ‘was’ -> ‘is’ and ‘were’ -> ‘are’

===> done

Line 212: ‘were’ -> ‘are’

===> done

Lines 213-215: ‘Since three-lepton events originating from the SM processes are rare, the background contributions are small. No excess of events over the SM background is observed and a B(t->Zq) branching fraction larger than 0.28% is excluded at the 95% confidence level.’

===> done

Table 4: ‘Missing transverse energy resolution’

===> done

Table 4 caption: ‘Summary of the systematic uncertainties…’

===> done

-- YuanChao - 31-May-2012

Comment 003 (Kajari Mazumdar) InstitutionalReview of TOP- t t -028 by TIFR-EHEP group

Congratulations to authors for the nice and interesting study. The paper is quite well-written.

Type A

Is the luminosity exactly or very near to 5 fb-1?

===> Yes, it's 4.982/fb.

line 3 ..(SM) as well as (replace"and")

===> done

L. 10:...large enhancement "in the branching fraction" and a clear ..

===> done

*L. 15:..DO experiments at Tevatron at centre of mass energy .... (since we are talking about energy at LHC and the increase etc.)*

===> done (rounded 1.96 TeV to 2 TeV)

L. t 7:larger than that at ..

===> done

L. 19: 0.70 fb- t reported an ...

===> done

L. 21: final state events. Therefore,..

===> done

L. 40:Is the first sentence needed?

===> move the paragraph to later in the text... let's just keep it to make a transition in topic without having a devoted section.

*L. 41:with invariant mass of lepton pairs M_lllarger than .. 149: transverse momentum p_T....... < 2.5 (2.4)*

===> done

L. 73:per bunch crossing

===> done

L. 75: pi radian (if possible rephrase the sentence) I86:underlying "event" activity

===> done

L. 90:do we explain what we mean by particle type (photon,charged and neutral hadron etc.etc.?..)

===> maybe that is to much detail for this publication.

L. 99:vertices

===> done

L. 101:..hundred events per 3-lepton channel.

===> done

L. 105:Fig.1 caption should mention about inte9rated lumi.

===> done

L. 128 below it, last line of Table 2 caption:vertices


L. t 34: 250 GeV. The variables m_Zj ...

===> added ","

L. 138:replace "and" by "combined with"

===> done

L. 147: The reconstructed mass of the candidate top quark, m_Zj< is required ..

===> done

L. 157:Put a bit flesh on the first sentence

===> modified

*L. 178 - L. 179:Rewrite, may be as follows: The total contribution for Dreii-Yan and ttbar events, after the HTs and btag based selections are estimated to be .....*

===> done

L. 184:..lepton selection, "modeling of multi-parton interactions", missing..

===> done

L. 197: The calculation of the upper limit is based on ..

===> done

Type B

*Do we need to mention about the track momentum while talking about vertex determination?*

===> we don't give that kind of detail for the other reconstructions and not crucial to the analysis.

L. 97:is missing transverse energy determined from sum of visible transverse momenta or energy?

===> We are now using c=1 and added the CMS standard description.

L. 98:event weighting needs to be explained a bit, wrt what it is being weighted? We would prefer a clearer statement

===> An event-by-event re-weighting is done based on the event pile-ups distribution of data to the flat distribution of MC. The data to MC scaling factors trigger efficiencies and (leptons, jets) reconstruction efficiencies are further applied.

L. 103:What are we trying to convey by the statement about single top production.It sounds a bit disjoint Without anything more being stated about the process.

===> Single top t-channel, s-channel and tW channel of the SM MC production are examined. (sample set names can be found in AN)

L. 114 - I 115: there is text in between without line number.Above the formula for pz please mention,whose longitudinal component is being calculated (Wb system?)

===> Yes, the neutrino from the W of the Wb system. Expanded the description.

L. 119 - L. 120:is there any physics reason? Is 60% good enough?

===> For high pT top pair decay, the daughters should still have relative high boost in the transverse direction. A wrong choice will result in a poor mass distribution of the Wb system. This approach is quite common in the top studies.

L. 146:Do we mention about the relevant pt range of the b-jets?

===> It's an integration of the whole pT range.

In section 5 the estimation of background is discussed.But also the justifications are given why they are quite less, why different processes are getting killed by different cuts. We feel the justification for selection criteria applied should appear earlier.

===> The cuts are quite straight forward. The reasons of why certain processes are kill are also mentioned in this section.

Comment 004 (Kajari Mazumdar) Institutional Review of TOP-11-028 by TIFR-EHEP group (re-submission for corrections? I've put the corrections in 003)

Comment 005 (Albert De Roeck)

Congrats with a very nice result on the search for t-> Zq decays. The paper is well written and concise. I like it!

I noted we are considerably better that perhaps expected form the first LHC study by ATLAS. They are above 1% with 1 fb-1. We are basically 4 times better than that. Is that because of better techniques used or lucky fluctuation of the background? I do not know what the expected limit of ATLAS...

===> Basically, we have around 7 times larger data than what ATLAS' result is using. Their expected limit is 1.3% while measured limit is 1.1%. We have purely data-driven ttbar and DY estimation and WZ/ZZ from MC scaled to data with N_jet = 0 bin. The background estimation used in b-tag method is further scaled from HTs method so we can have smaller uncertainties.

For the models: we do not seem to have any chance to get even close to a detection of this signal if the expectation is 10^-4. Of course we always have to search, no matter of what the expectation is, but is there really no model we know of that could give a higher rate?

===> If without 4-gen. quarks, the largest possible would be 10^-5 to 10^-6. (need to check related papers for details)


  • section 3: Always good to give full versions of the MC programs used, for later reference.

===> details in AN

  • How sensitive is this analysis to pile-up and how was it mitigated? Is the procedure given in line 92 the standard procedure or something new?

===> We estimate the effect by comparing MC with and w/o pile-up re-weighting and use the difference. A systematics of 7% is quoted. It's standard PFJet correction.

  • line 98: is that base on using tag and probe? maybe say so,(with reference)

===> The trigger estimation is based on a study of Jet triggered events. (see AN) For leptons, it's from official numbers. (reference needed)

  • table one: At this stage you see some excess in the eee channel? Isn't that worth noting?

===> Yes, we do see around 2 sigma more entries at this stage. But after all selections applied, eee channel is of the smallest yields.

  • Do I understand correctly that we constrain the top mass only very broadly, as given in section 4.1 and 4.2 but not stronger than that?

===> For HTs method, a wide mass window (10 ~ 250 GeV) is used while for b-tag method, a narrower windows is used. You can see the illustration in Fig. 2.

  • line 121: what requirements are we exactly taking about here?

===> Those are as described in 4.1 and 4.2.

  • line 130: why do you need to assume that? can't this be checked with the pflow objects, ie the tracks, form the jet?

===> It's the standard PFnoPU option in use. (explained previously)

  • line 143: do you mean: at least 2 jets of which at least one one must be a b-jet? Or you require 3 jets here.

===> At least two jets and one (and only one) of them should be b-tagged

  • line 146: is the quoted mis-identification here for the sum of g & u-d-s-c quarks?

===> It's from the official mis-tagged rate from BTV group. All information is reference given.

  • Section 5: for the simulation based background channels: how have these been normalized? To NLO cross sections? You use Pythia and madgraph for a number of then so the cross sections could be off by quite a bit, just using these from the MC's. Best add to the text what is exactly done.

===> ttbar and DY are from full data-driven method using the lepton ID and ISO cuts. It's described in 166-180. While the WZ and ZZ are MC based and re-normalized to N_Jet=0 bin. This part was in PAS but left out in the draft.

  • The top and DY are derived from data but already from table 1 and again from the end of section 5 these are shown to be of no big importance. Of course it is good to check as they could have large uncertainties, but do we also control the dominant backgrounds well enough? I understand these come essentially from MC? No control checks here?

===> A judgment can be made from Fig. 2. One can see good agreement on top mass in both signal and side band regions for both methods.

  • How were the PDF uncertainties calculated?

===> It's done using LHAPDF tool. The differences due to the uncertainties of the CTEQ6 40 parameters are quad. summed as the PDF uncertainties.

  • line 186: we usually quote 2.2% for the lumi uncertainty.

===> Now in the text we quote 2.2%, while in the table is rounded to 2% like for the other contributions.

-- YuanChao - 03-Jun-2012

Comment 006 (Tim Bolton) Institutional Review Kansas State University

Congratulations on a clearly presented result. The analysis seems sound to me. The language is a bit passive and the document could be shortened, but it is functional as is.

Type A comments

Line 12 Define script B on first usage?

===> done, new line 5

Line 46 delete "as is"

===> done

Line 69 I would delete "there should be ...event;" and just capitalize the next word "Events"

===> done

Line 77-87 This is a rather long-winded paragraph that could be shortened. I would start it in its existing from with "events containing leptons...", as it is the events that are suppressed.

===> done

Line 86 There is a significant figures mismatch in "0.125 (0.1)"

===> We don't think that is helps to change it to "0.125 (0.100)"

Line 157 "background"-->"backgrounds"

===> done

Tables 2 and 4 should specify that the values are in percent.

===> done

Type B comments

Section 4's construction seems awkward to me. The real introduction to the section starts at line 121. Lines 111-120 give kinematic details that would better follow. Is it clear that the "discrimant" in the equation is the argument of the square root? (Is it?)

===> The discriminant is referring to the term inside the square root.

Line 202 While this is implicit, do you want to make an explicit note that the CLS method consistently accounts for the "lucky" downward fluctuations in the data in terms of setting the limits?

===> We believe it will be redundant given that we provided both the observed and expected limit as well as one sigma bound.

-- YuanChao - 05-Jun-2012

Comment 007 (Sijin Qian)

It's nice to see this interesting paper having gone into the almost final stage. I have roughly read through the TOP-11-028-paper-v4.pdf, and would have some (large and small) questions and comments from a non-expert's point of view. I list them below, please make a note of it if any of them would be sound.

  1. According to the convention of all CMS papers, the caption of Table should be put above the Table itself instead of underneath it.

==> done

  1. In all figures,
    1. on the top line inside the plot, the power (-1) of "fb" all should be moved toward the right for a half size of a letter, i.e. "= 7 TeV, 5.0 fb**(-1)" --> "= 7 TeV, 5.0 fb**( -1)"
    2. on the last line in each legend box, to be consistent with the expression for "Branching fraction" elsewhere in this paper, it seems should be changed from "(Br 1%)" --> "(B 1%)"

==> done

Page 1

  1. L4-5, the branching fraction "B" should be explained at its first appearance in text here, i.e. "with a branching fraction approaching 100%" --> "with a branching fraction (B) approaching 100%"

==> now done in line 5

  1. L33-34, as ECAL also measure the energy of photons, I'm not sure whether it should be mentioned here or not, i.e. "providing energy measurements of electrons and hadron jets." --> "providing energy measurements of photons, electrons and hadron jets."

==> done

Page 2

  1. L49, the pT should be explained at its first appearance in text here, i.e. "pT > 20 GeV/c," --> "transverse momentum pT > 20 GeV/c,"

==> done

  1. L50-51,
    1. the "efficiency" seems should be plural,

==> done

    1. a comma seems missing after the "98%", i.e. "Their efficiency for events containing two leptons satisfying the nalysis selection is measured to be 99%, 98% 91% and" --> "Their efficiencies for events containing two leptons satisfying the analysis selection are measured to be 99%, 98%, 91% and"

==> done

  1. L88 and L108, at 2 places, the distance between the "E/" and its subscript "T" seems a little too much, it will be looked better if to reduce it.

==> this is the recommended CMS latex script for ET_miss

Page 3

  1. Table 1,
    1. as mentioned in the item (1) above, the location of caption should be changed.

===> done

    1. In the caption, 2nd line, the "that is" seems can be shortened from "that is, the trigger, Z boson, ..." --> "i.e. the trigger, Z boson, ..."

===> changed

  1. L108, the variable "ET" in the formula has not been explained in the paper yet, it should be done here, i.e. "where only the three leptons and two jets ..." --> "where ET is ... and only the three leptons and two jets ..."

===> done

Page 4

  1. Fig.1's caption, 2nd line, the "section" here seems should be capitalized, i.e. "in section 3" --> "in Section 3" 3 other places should be modified by the same way at
    1. L121
    2. L138
    3. the 2nd line of Fig.2's caption

==> done

  1. L120, it is printed that "... is the correct one more than 60% of the time"; this is looked like that nearly 1/2 is not correct, i.e. one decision being correct is only a half of chance, another half is being wrong???

===> A wrong selection will just dilute the mass distribution.

Page 5

  1. L126, to be consistent with the word of "selections" at the end of L128, here it should be changed from "selection, respectively." --> "selections, respectively."

===> done

  1. L143, it is printed that "there should be at least two jets and one b-jet." I'm not sure whether the former "two jets" can include a "b-jet" or not. Regardless the answer is "yes" or "no", it seems should be expressed more clearly to avoid the ambiguities.

==> changed "at least two jets, one of which is a $\rm b$-jet."

Page 8

  1. Table 3,
    1. as mentioned in the item (1) above, the location of caption should be changed.

==> done

    1. The whole table seems should be moved forward to the place right after L181 (where Table 3 is 1st-timely cited) before Section 6, since there is sufficient space on Page 7.

==> done

    1. In the 1st row and 1st column, to be consistent with the capitalization in the table, the word of "Selection" should be changed from "Signal Selection" --> "Signal selection"

==> done

  1. Table 4,
    1. as mentioned in the item (1) above, the location of caption should be changed.

==> done

    1. The whole table seems should be moved forward to the place right after L189 (where Table 4 is 1st-timely cited) before Section 7 (or at least before Section 8).

==> done

    1. In the 1st column, 2nd and 3rd rows below the header row, to be consistent with the capitalization in the table, 3 words should be changed from "Trigger Efficiency" --> "Trigger efficiency" and "Parton Distribution Functions" --> "Parton distribution functions"

Pages 9-10, in the References Section,

  1. L238, in [3],
    1. to be consistent with other Refs. (e.g. [1] and [8], etc.) in this Section, if the number of authors is more than 3, only the 1st author is put in the Reference plus "et al.", instead of "2 or 3 names + et al.", i.e. "[3] G. Lu, F. Yin, X.Wang et al.," --> "[3] G. Lu et al.," Another one which also needs to be changed by the same way is Refs.[12].
    2. to be consistent with other Refs. in this Section, the space should be added in between the words of journal's name, i.e. "Phys.Rev. D68 (2003) 015002" --> "Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 015002" Another one which also needs to be changed by the same way is Refs.[16]

==> done

  1. L242, in [4], the unit of "TeV" is missing, i.e. "Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96" --> "Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV"

==> done

  1. L247-248, in [6],
    1. the capitalization of 4 words (i.e. "search" and "collision data collected") seem should be changed,

===> done

    1. the month info can be removed in order to be consistent with other Refs., i.e. "A search for ... of pp collision data collected with the ATLAS Detector", Technical Report ATLAS-CONF-2011-154, CERN, Geneva, (Nov, 2011)." --> "A Search for ... of pp Collision Data Collected with the ATLAS Detector", Technical Report ATLAS-ONF-2011-154, CERN, Geneva (2011)."

  1. L259-260, in [11], the capitalization of 2 words (i.e. "Parton Shower") seem should be changed, i.e. "Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method" --> "Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method"

==> done

  1. L268, in [14], to: be consistent with other JHEP Refs. (e.g. [8]-[12], etc.), it should be changed from (also the spaces before and after "=" should be added) "at sqrt(s)=7 TeV", JHEP 1101 (2011) 080," --> "at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV", JHEP 01 (2011) 080,"

===> done

-- YuanChao - 07-Jun-2012

Comment 008 (Katja Klein)

This is the Institutional Review from RWTH Aachen University.

The analysis is interesting and the paper is generally in good shape. We are however worried about the fact that the main WZ background (13.6 events from 16.2 in the HTS-cut selection and 0.7 from 0.8 in the b-tag selection) is taken entirely from Monte Carlo. It is not explained how the Monte Carlo was validated, and no systematic error is assigned to the MC modelling. The correction of the MC is not explained clearly. Given the fact that the final result of the analysis depends heavily on the modeling of the WZ background, we think that this point needs further clarification.

===> we had lost a sentence that was available in the PAS explaining the validation of the MC using data and the applied rescaling to take into account the observed differences in the N_jet=0 bin. Put it back in.

Our comments are listed below, split into the categories "A. English/Style/Formatting" and "B. Everything else".

A. English/Style/Formatting (including figures)

  • Abstract: "at the 95% confidence level" --> "at 95% confidence level"

===> not changed. It contradicts request made by ARC.

  • line 3: "standard model" --> "Standard Model"

===> not changed. It contradicts request made by ARC.

  • line 5: "approaching" sounds strange in this context

==> open to suggestion.

  • line 6: "top" is slang, say "top quark"

==> done

  • line 8: "of the order of O(10^-14)": this is a duplication; if you say "of the order" you do not need an "O" symbol

==> done

  • line 11: remove the comma after "for example" for better readability

==> done

  • line 15: "at the 95% confidence level" --> "at 95% confidence level"

===> not changed. It contradicts request made by ARC.

  • line 19: "result into an upper limit" --> "result in an upper limit"

===> not changed.

  • lines 24/25: mention that this is a pp sample

===> done.

  • line 40: to be re-phrased: "Samples of simulated events are used to guide the design of the analysis." It is not the samples that should guide the selection, but the physics.

===> done

  • line 43/44: use mbox; the reader looses the connection from one page to another

==> now in same page

  • line 44: "l = e,mu" add a small space before "mu"

===> done

  • line 45: remove "of the CMS detector" because it is already mentioned

===> done

  • line 46: change: "used to process collision data" to "used to process pp collision data'

===> not done, redundant

  • line 48: remove the brackets around the channel list

===> done

  • line 48: put the "e+/-" after the "mu+mu-" or at least choose some consistent way of writing down the particles of the 4 channels

===> done

  • line 51: add comma between "98% 91%"

===> done

  • line 55: "and the pixel detectors" --> "and pixel detectors"

===> done

  • line 53-55: this is a redundant description. If the muons are reconstructed from a global fit using tracker and muon hits, then it seems pretty obvious that there must have hits in the tracker and the muon chambers, i.e. this is not "in addition". Rephrase it.

===> done

  • line 66: Put a comma here: "electron purity more stringent" --> "electron purity, more stringent"

===> done

  • line 75: sentence about the cosmic veto to complicated

===> done

  • line 88: "The jets and" --> "Jets and"

===> done

  • line 99: "vertexes" --> "vertices"

===> done

  • line 105: "shows data and simulated events for the distributions" --> "shows for data and simulated events the distributions"

===> done

  • Table 1, Caption: "and missing energy requirements are included." --> "and missing energy requirements."

===> done

  • Figures 1 and 2:
    • add labels on y-axes
    • put space between "CMS" and sqrt(s)
    • move complete legend further down to avoid collision with tick marks on top axis
    • move "^-1" from "fb^-1" further to the right
    • "Br 1%" this should be "B = 1%", preferably using the same font for "B" as in the text
    • use the same size and relative position for the text
    • for plots use SetNdivisions(505)
    • on x axis it looks like we can measure up to 9001000 GeV
    • it should be written both in the plots as well as in the caption which channels (all four?) are included in those plots
    • the red dotted line in Figure 1 (c) indicating a cut value should be removed or described
    • x-axis label of Fig. 1 (b): unclear what exactly "l" means
    • Figure 2: "(Top)" --> "(top)" and similarly for "(bottom)"
    • change the fonts in the capture for a better reading (make them italic)

==> many changes made.

  • line 110: "Signal" this is a pretty meaningless section title

===> Signal Selection

  • line 120: "correct one more than 60% of the time." does this mean that the final limit has a 40% systematic error? please clarify

===> see above

  • lines 122/162: minimum --> minimal

===> not sure, that is correct.

  • lines 126/127: mention that details of these selections are explained below

===> contradicts request from the ARC.

  • Table 2, Caption: vertexes --> vertices

===> done

  • lines 134, 144, 157 (twice): do not start a sentence with a variable

===> done

  • line 137: "Figure 2 shows" --> "Figure 2 (top) shows"

===> done

  • line 138: remove "see"

===> done

  • line 150: "Figure 2 shows" --> "Figure 2 (bottom) shows"

===> done

  • be consistent is notations, e.g. line 177: "b tagging", line 185: "b-tagging"

===> done

  • line 187: "combine giving" --> "combine to"

===> done

  • line 190: "estimate" --> "estimation"

===> done

  • line 204: "analyzes" --> "analyses"

===> done

  • Section 8: the whole text should be in present tense, not past tense.

===> done

  • line 210: "A sample of three-lepton events were" should be singular

===> done

  • line 212: "These events were selected assuming the existence" this makes no sense and should be rephrased. We search for this process, we do not assume its existence.

===> Changed: "These events are compatible with a XXX topology.

  • line 213: "l = e,mu" add a small space before "mu"

===> done

  • *line 213: "are a rare SM processes" --> "are a rare SM process". In fact events are not a process. The whole sentence
should be rephrased.*

===> Changed:

  • In general, the whole summary is not phrased well. It reads as if it was rewritten several times.

  • The capitalization in all four tables should be checked. E.g. "Trigger Efficiency" --> "Trigger efficiency", "b-tag Selection" --> "b-tag selection"

===> Done

  • Table 4: "Summary of uncertainties" --> "Summary of systematic uncertainties"

===> Done

  • 238: Remove "The" (it is not part of the title)

===> Done

  • 242: "1.96" --> "1.96 TeV"

===> Done

  • 249: "Geneva, (Nov, 2011)." --> "Geneva (Nov. 2011)."

B. Everything else (e.g. strategy, paper structure, emphasis, additions/subtractions, etc).

  • lines 21-22: the logic is not very clear. At least "therefore" should be removed, because it reads as if it would refer to the previous sentence (branching fraction being small); a rephrasing of the whole paragraph would be better.

==> done

  • somewhere in section 3 it should be explained how tau decays are treated, i.e. if leptonic tau decays are included

===> In the MC samples, tau decays are included thought not explicitly reconstructed. Their contributions can gain some efficiency (~10% of total) through the W-> tau (-> e or mu) nu process. The contribution from Z -> tau tau, where tau -> e or mu, is found to be negligible.

  • Section 2: this analysis/paper wants to set a precision limit, therefore the energy and pT resolution should be mentioned

===> (using standard jets and lepton selections -> citing standard CMS performance? this is not a DPG paper.)

  • lines 41-42: Why do you use inconsistent diboson samples? Is there a reason not to use all-Madgraph or all-Pythia MC?

===> Actually both official Madgraph and Pythia WW and ZZ samples are checked and consistent. But the Madgraph WW and ZZ samples are not inclusive.

  • line 49: change the eta acceptance for the electrons; as it is written, it is not correct (we cannot reconstruct electrons in the crack region)

===> crack regions are actually excluded.

  • lines 49-52: the discussion of the trigger is insufficient.
    • what are the pT cuts for the double-lepton triggers?
    • what trigger level is this? L1, HLT...? The trigger criteria for both levels should be mentioned.
    • how where the trigger efficiencies measured?

==> same as all other papers. Will add a reference to one of the EW papers.

  • line 55: "high-quality" how high? please be precise

==> given that we say in the next sentence that is 99% efficient, do we have to give more details. I don't think that is the case in this type of paper.

  • line 64: "W or Z decays" be more precise: W->e/mu and Z->mumu, because Z->tau tau->mu mu can be also selected

==> What is the point of this request? (tau channels are included in the simulation as described previously and stated in the paper)

  • line 69/70: "events with a fourth lepton satisfying the high-purity criteria are rejected." Why? b-quarks can decay also semi-leptonic and so far there is no comment about the isolation. Please re-phrase

===> yes, but those are not isolated ... will move this paragraph to later in the text.

  • paragraphs 65-70 and 71-76 should be swapped, as currently the "third lepton" is discussed before the other two leptons have been mentioned

==> some swapping done

  • page 2, bottom: it should be explained how the three leptons, if of equal flavor, are assigned to the Z or the W. Or, in other words, what happens if several Z candidates can be formed?

===> discussed in the section that talks about signal selection and top mass reconstruction

  • page 3: the cut on the number of jets is not well explained. In lines 94/95 the jet criteria are mentioned, but it is not said how many jets are required. Then in lines 107/108 suddenly a "two or more jet requirement" comes up which has never been mentioned before.

===> discussed in the section that talks about signal selection

  • line 95: "separated by DR > 0.4 from leptons passing the analysis selection." the jet radius is DR=0.5, does this means that a lepton is allowed to be within the jet? please clarify

===> not really. In addition, this is a redundant cut as leptons where already required to be isolated.

  • line 97: "missing transverse energy" specify the applied corrections for MET

===> Jet and MET correction already described in the previous paragraph, more details are unnecessary.

  • lines 98/99 (and caption of table 2): the correction of the MC for trigger and reconstruction efficiencies is unclear. How is this done? Is this a global factor or some kind of unfolding? If it is a global factor, what is the effect of e.g. the pT and eta dependencies of the efficiencies?

===> global factor as function of pT.

  • line 100: "the basic event selection": this basic event selection is never clearly defined.

===> added "described above"

  • line 108/109: "two jets from the ttbar candidate": how are these jets choosen, i.e. how are jets assigned to the ttbar candidate?

===> described in Section 4.

  • the lists of requirements both in the caption of Table 1 as well as in lines 105-108 refering to figure 1 is confusing. Why is the jets requirement used for the figure but not for the table? Why is the "two jets requirement" not part of the "basic event selection"? If it is not, why is it then discussed in this section?

===> modified. Two jets or more are required in order to make plots more meaningful.

  • mT should be defined

==> done

  • page 3 second-last line (no number): "The invariant mass of the W and b-jet system": it should be explained before that and how a b-jet is selected. What is a "b jet system"?

===> ??? This is the purpose or the paragraph.

  • line 117: "discriminant" unclear what exactly is meant here

===> discriminant is the term inside the square-root.

  • lines 126/127: "The second one is the most sensitive and hence is taken as the reference analysis." Nevertheless the emphasis is on the first (HTS) analysis, since it is always explained and listed first, while the values and even results for the b-tag analysis are mentioned in brackets. The emphasis should be on the reference analysis.

==> Solved in new version

  • line 130: how is the primary vertex chosen? what do you mean by "jets are assumed..."? Do you mean "are required..."?

===> as for other analysis, is the vertex with the largest number of tracks.

  • line 132: "there is no association requirement between jets and the Z candidate": does this mean the jets and the Z must not come from the same vertex? Why not?

===> No, it does not mean that. It means that it is assumed to be from the same vertex without and explicit check, because jets are required to come from primary vertex and it is hard to believe that a Z-->ll originated from a minimum bias events from a pileup event.

  • line 133. "A selected event will have at least two jets." strange formulation and already mentioned in section 3.

===> improved

  • line 143 and 151: "one b-jet": exactly one or at least one?

===> exactly one

  • line 145: "relies on tracks with large impact parameters": we believe this should read "large impact parameter significance"

===> done

  • line 146: b tagging efficiency and mistag efficiency are depending on the cut value. Rephrase sentence, like "cut value is chosen to have an identification efficiency of 66% and misidentification rate of 10%"

===> sentence changed

  • line 146: "a misidentification rate of 10%": for what particle type? light quarks, light quarks plus c, gluons, ...?

==> detail of composition in the reference.

  • line 147-149: how where these cuts, i.e. the values, chosen/optimised?

===> they correspond to a 2-sigma mass cut chosen before "opening the box".

  • Figure 2 (top) The numbers of data events in the two plots are different: 34 events for Mzj, 31 events for Mwb. Why?

===> There are 3 underflow events for Mwb.

  • Figure 2: Number of the signal events (Br 1%) in upper Mzj plot (within Mtop - 25Gev < Mzj < Mtop + 25Gev) is ~40, and in the lower Mzj plot is ~20. Why after applying b-tag selection, which has 66% efficiency, is the number of data events 2 times smaller (actually difference is even larger, because in the first case HTs cut was applied, and in the second - not)?

===> There is no b-tag selection for HTs cut method and the HTs cut mainly reduces the top combinatorial. The b-tagging 66% efficiency is for a single jet, but the other factor is that events with >=2 b jets are rejected as well. Many of the events in the top plots are actually real ttbar events with 2 b-tagged jets (as the nature of a c-jet), so the number of events that survive the b-tagging requirement is lower. The ratio of the signal events in two cases is consistent considering the b-tag and anti-b-tag efficiencies.

  • Figure 2 (bottom): in the b-tag analysis there are 3 events just at the cut boundaries; two in the left plot and one in the right plot. The results might therefore depend heavily on the selected cut values. Was this a blind analysis? If yes, it should be mentioned. If not, these three events must be discussed and the effect of varying the cuts be included in the systematic uncertainty. A 2-d plot of mZj and mWb would help to show that the events on the boundary of one cut are discarded in a robust way by the cut in the other variable, respectively.

===> yes, it was blind. The decision on the cuts to be used where made based on the simulation and shown in Nov. before looking at the data in Jan.-Feb. 2-d plots attached showing data events and simulated signal events (no background MC is shown in either plot).

  • Section 5: The main background is WZ. This background is taken from Monte Carlo. The result of the analysis depends entirely on this background estimate. How was the MC validated? How exactly was the MC corrected (see comment above) and how was this validated? What uncertainty is assigned to the MC modelling? What uncertainty is assigned to the correction?

===> As described previously (in PAS), WZ contribution is re-scaled from the N_jet=0 bin of data to MC. We have include a 7% uncertainty from the statistics of this bin. The effect is embedded in the statistical uncertainty of this component. ADDED again a few sentences about the rescaling.

  • line 176: "after subtracting the contribution from dibosons" where does the number to be subtracted come from? Again from MC? How big is it? If it is large and extracted from MC, then the method to estimate Drell-Yan and ttbar should not be labeled "from data".

==> The estimation of dibosons comes from MC. Open to suggestion for an alternative name to "data-driven" methods for the DY estimate.

  • Section 6: this is too short. In particular, what are the uncertainties related to the modelling of the WZ Monte Carlo, and from variation of cuts (see comment above on events being very close to cut values)

===> Expanding this section will not bring any additional insight to this null result.

  • line 186: "There is a 2% uncertainty on the luminosity measurement" this is wrong, the error is 2.2%

===> "wrong"? Just rounding. (for the consistency of 2 effective digits)

  • line 193: results should also be presented split up into the four lepton-channels

==> not justified.

  • Table 3 "Observed events" give the error for the 11 events

==> Not standard.

  • Table 4: except for the b-tagging and total, all numbers are the same for the two selections. Therefore it would be nicer to just keep two columns with the numbers for the second analysis in brackets.

==> contradiction to ARC request.

  • The total systematic error for the b-tag Selection is 22%. The quoted result for background prediction is 0.8 +/- 0.1 +/- 0.1. 22% out of 0.8 are 0.17 not 0.1. A 0.1 error corresponds to 12.5 % systematic error.

===> this are additional uncertainties

Comment 009 (Greg Landsberg)

Congratulations on a new limit on the FCNC decays of the top quark. The analysis is well documented and sounds robust, so I only have a handful of physics comments. The text of the paper, however, would require some work, as there is a lot of inconsistency in the use of Oxford comma and hyphenation rules. Moreover, the text is sprinkled with jargon (all these cuts, fakes, errors should be stamped out) and uses non-standard notations (most notoriously an awkward HT_S, which is commonly referred to as S_T in the majority of CMS and non-CMS papers, alike). Please, find my comments broken into the physics and style ones.

===> (EXO-10-018 b', EXO-11-036 b', EXO-11-071 BH: S_T is used which counts all objects in an event; EXO-11-099 uses H_T, exactly the same definition, now in CWR; EXO-11-005 t': R_T is used as only non-signal daughters counted) We can change to S_T, just need to specify that only signal daughter objects are counted.

"... the scalar quantity ST = ∑ pT (jets) + ∑ pT (leptons) + E T is determined... from the decay of the t and the t ̄ quarks."


  1. Please replace HTS with ST through the paper. This is the notation used in our b' and t' searches, BH analysis, SUSY analyses, and many other papers. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Also, suggest capitalizing all the masses, as is done in majority of our papers: Mt, MZj, MWb.

===> (need to replace the plots too...)

  1. L2: please add citations of the top-quark discovery papers here.

===> really needed?

  1. LL40-46: specify the PDF set used in simulation.

===> (CTEQ6, to further check the details of standard PDF set used in CMSSW)

  1. L71: why is the invariant mass window so wide? Can you improve the sensitivity by reducing it in half (to +/- 15 GeV around the Z-boson mass)?

===> The original HTs method uses +/- 10 GeV so yes some slightly improvement can be expected. The final selection was decided to combine the two methods. The b-tag method uses the selection from WZ diboson study.

  1. L88: you introduce the \MET symbol here, but only use it in Fig. 1, and in a single place in the text (L108). This is odd and using it could save you a lot of space. Suggest replacing some of the "missing transverse energy" (which you often imprecisely call "missing energy") with the \MET symbol.

  1. L108: since you insist on using unnatural units (i.e., dragging all these /c, /c^2 for momenta and masses) your formula is incorrect as the first and the last two terms have different dimensionality. Either switch to natural units in the paper, or replace p_T with E_T.

===> changed to natural units

  1. Fig. 1: add space between "CMS" and "\sqrt{s} = 7 TeV" in all three panes; in (c) use ST as the x-axis label. Single top in the legend should not be hyphenated. If possible replace Br with {\cal B} in the legend, to match text. Lower the legend a bit as the top line overlaps with the top axis ticks.

===> done is the current PNG plots. (no mathcal font in ROOT TLatex so only italy is used.)

  1. Formula for p_z above L115: define px,y,zℓ, Eℓ and ETν in the text.

==> done

  1. L126: replace ``HTS-cut'' with ``ST'' here and through the text (cut is jargon and not needed here).

===> done

  1. Fig. 2: add space between "CMS" and "\sqrt{s} = 7 TeV" in all three panes; Single top in the legend should not be hyphenated. If possible replace Br with {\cal B} in the legend, to match text. Lower the legend a bit as the top line overlaps with the top axis ticks. Enumerate panels a) - d) and refer to them as such in the caption, as you do for Fig. 1 - don't mix two styles of referring to the figure panes (geographical and by reference).

===> done is the current PNG plots. (no mathcal font in ROOT TLatex so only italy is used.)

  1. LL183-186: Explain how the PDF uncertainty was estimated (PDF4LHC?). The luminosity uncertainty is 2.2\%, not 2\%. Finally, you can not use an unpublished combination PAS for the ttbar cross section uncertainty. Please, use the latest published result, which would change your systematics slightly.


  1. Title: sounds odd as is as pp collisions refer to production, and not decay of the top quark. Suggest a short title: Search for ... in Top-Quark decays at the LHC"; note that Top-Quark should be hyphenated. Abstract, L1: in top-quark decays; L3: a total -> an; L4: 5.0 fb−1 recorded in proton-proton; L5: 7 TeV with the CMS; L6: no evidence for; L7: of the t→Zq decay larger; L8: delete "the".

==> done

  1. Introduction, L4: top-quark decays; L8: branching fraction B(t→Zq) is predicted; L10: evidence for a violation of the SM predictions. L11: R-parity-violating; L12: technicolor models [3]; L14: top-quark decays performed by CDF; L15: at 95\% confidence level; L17: that that at the Tevatron. L18: of the vector bosons.

==> done

  1. CMS Detector, L26: The CMS Detector; L29: Charged-particle trajectories.

==> done

  1. Basic Selection, L41: SM ttˉ, and WZ events; L45: {\sc GEANT4}-based [13] model; L47: Z-boson decay; L49: transverse momenta pT>20 GeV/c; L51: 99\%, 98\%, 91\%, and; L52: for the eee, eeμ, eμμ, and μμμ; LL56-57: is >99% [14]. L66: electron sample purity, more stringent; L73: per proton-bunch crossing (pileup); L74: leptons, which ... events, must; L86: due to pileup, is required; L87: add white space in front of opening parentheses (in two places); L88: particle-flow technique; L89: with a distance parameter of 0.5 is used; L92: correction for pileup is included; L94: add a comma before "and"; L96: from the W-boson decays; L101: 1.3 (1.6) million Z(ee) (Z(μμ)) events. L102: delete "to \ell^+\ell^-"; includes the τ+τ−→ℓ+ℓ−+X decay; Table 1 caption, LL2-3: fourth-lepton veto, and; L3: delete "are included"; caption should be above the table. Table 1 body, last row before Total: Single top (no hyphen); L105: missing transverse energy; L107: fourth-lepton veto, missing transverse energy, and; L108: The ST variable is defined (can't start a sentence with a math symbol).

==> done

  1. Signal, L110: suggest Signal Reconstruction; L113: light-quark jets; Fig. 1 caption, L2: in Section 3; missing transverse energy; L3: reconstructed ℓν transverse mass, and (c); L4: leptons, and neutrino, ST. The data are represented; L5: the open histogram shows the. Add a sentence at the end about the background: "Stacked solid histograms represent dominant backgrounds." L115: add a comma before "and"; L117: to the W-boson mass (MW). L118: add a comma after pz; L121: in Section 3; L125: In this Letter; Table 2 caption, LL1-2: Only statistical uncertainties are shown. LL3-5: delete the last sentence, which is a direct repetition of what has been already said in the body of the paper (LL98-99). Move the caption above the table body. Table 2 body, header row: "ST selection"; "b-tag selection"; L129: ST-Based Selection; L130: ST-based selection; L134: The MZj; L135: add a comma before "which"; L138: in Section 3; L143: two jets, at least one of which is a b jet. L144: The b jets are; high-efficiency; L146: b jets; L147: The reconstructed top-quark mass MZj is required; L148: Mt=172 GeV/c2, while MWb is required to be within 35 GeV/c2 of Mt. L151: at least two jets, with at least one of them passing the b-tag requirements. Fig. 2 caption, L2: Section 3; L3: minimum ST value, as required in the ST-based selection. L5: and the open histogram shows the expected; L7: allowed mass regions. Stacked solid histogram show dominant backgrounds.

==> done

  1. Background Estimation, L154: ZZ, and single-top production; L157: The WZ and ZZ production are; The WW production has; L158: an extra high-pT lepton and a b jet. L160: in the ST (b-tag) based selection; L161: is smaller than 0.01 at 95\% CL for both selections. L162: missing transverse energy; L163: multijet; a jet could be misidentified as a lepton; L165: and the top-quark mass requirements; LL168,169: add a comma before "and" (twice); L171: a misidentified lepton; heavy-flavor decays, or genuine three-lepton events; L172: lost in the signal sample due to; L174: a jet to be misidentified as a lepton. Using the genuine and misidentified lepton efficiencies; L175: yield of genuine and misidentified three-lepton events; L177: e.g., b tagging; L179: ST (b-tag) based selection.

==> done

  1. Systematic uncertainties, L184: lepton selection, pileup modeling, missing transverse energy resolution; L185: b jets [20], and; L187: a 20\% (22\%); LL187-188: in the ST (b-tag) based selection.

==> done

  1. Results, L192: In the ST (b-tag) based selection; L195: (CLs method [23,24]); L200: branching fraction; L202: The observed (expected) 95\% CL upper limits on the branching fraction B(t→Zq); L203: 0.28\% (0.40\%), obtained in the b-tag based selection; L204: delete "of a data ... 5.0 fb−1" (repetition); LL205-206: observed (expected) upper limits; for the ST-based selection; L207: 0.35\% (0.43\%) and; Table 3 caption, LL1-2: for the ST and b-tag based selections. The uncertainties; move the caption above the Table body; Table 3 body, header row: "ST-based", "b-tag based".

==> done

  1. Summary, L209: top-quark decays; Table 4 caption: for the ST and b-tag based; move the caption above the Table body; Table 4 body, header row: "ST selection", "b-tag selection"; first column: Lepton Selection; Pileup Modeling; \MET Resolution; Cross Sections; b Tagging, Jet Energy Scale.

==> done

  1. References. Refs. [6,21] can not be used in the paper, as they refer to preliminary result. Either replace or remove them and change the corresponding text.

==> removed

  1. Ref. [7]: JINST {\bf 03} (2008) S08004. Ref. [14]: JHEP {\bf 01} (2011) 080. Ref. [16]: Phys. Lett. (add space). Ref. [17]: JINST {\bf 06} (2011) P11002. Ref. [18]: JINST {\bf 06} (2011) P09001. Ref. [19]: JINST {\bf 05} (2010) T03014.Ref. [24]: give an arXiv reference.

===> done. arXiv does not exist.

-- YuanChao - 08-Jun-2012

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Unknown file formateps 2dData.eps r1 manage 10.0 K 2012-06-12 - 11:18 YuanChao  
Unknown file formateps 2dSimulationWithLines.eps r1 manage 12.9 K 2012-06-12 - 11:19 YuanChao  
PNGpng hist_top_dphi.png r1 manage 11.6 K 2012-06-12 - 11:32 YuanChao  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r27 < r26 < r25 < r24 < r23 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r27 - 2012-06-24 - YuanChao
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    Main All webs login

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