"Both signals are digitized with an edge sensitive circuit sampled at 40 MHz. In order to maximize the hit detection efficiency, the sampling clock phase is adjustable in steps of 200 ps across the full 25 ns bunch crossing period."
Is this clear enough now? We no longer use the word "latched" as it obfuscates the meaning of the sentence.
Such clusters become increasingly likely as the incident angle of the beam increases and charge deposited by the protons is more likely to be recovered across multiple strips.
Line 9 : "The current tracker [4], composed of a pixel layer and a strip layer will be replaced by.." - this makes it sound like the current CMS tracker is made-up of two layers. Please rephrase.
Done
Line 12 : Please also include the expected dose (TID)
Done
Line 24 : "..Concentrator Integrated Circuit (CIC) [10] distributes clock, trigger and control signals .." - the CIC does not distribute cock and trigger (or any fast commands) to the PS front-end ASICs. That is the role of the lpGBT…
Done, including new mention and ref to lpGBT.
Line 27 : "with large ionization (HIP)" - perhaps replace with "from highly ionizing particles (HIP)"; that then also defines the acronym
Done
Figure 1 [Caption] : " The z direction points along the beam " - Perhaps beam axis rather than beam would be more correct .
Done_Figure 2 [Caption] : "Simultaneous hits (red) recorded by the MPA and SSA only form a stub if the hits in the SSA are within some fiducial region (blue) of the short-strip sensor, seeded by the location of the hit in the macro-pixel sensor" ; I am being kind of picky here but its the clusters (not the hits) that are usd to form the stubs. That's shown quite clearly in the data-flow diagram later in the text so perhaps this caption should be modified to match. Also, the cluster acceptance window .. is that defined as 'n-strips away from the correlated cluster'? Or is it a search window entered on the seed cluster? I thought it was the latter, but maybe that's only in the CBCs?
_This seems needlessly granular for a figure caption in the introduction, especially as theses concept (clusters, centroids) haven’t yet been introduced, so to keep things simple without being blatantly incorrect: Simultaneous hits (or clusters of hits) recorded by the MPA and SSA only form a stub if the hits in the SSA are within some fiducial region (shown in blue) of the short strip sensor, seeded by the location of the hit in the macro-pixel sensor.
Line 34 : "The paper will first describe the SSA chip, two-SSA module under test and the experimental.." - missing article before two-SSA? Done Line 50 : "carries up to eight hits or clusters of neighbouring hits" : sorry, again my confusion about consistent use of hits/clusters. The SSA can transmit up-to 8 centroids per 40 MHz clock cycle to the MPA; and a centroid is defined as the geometric center of a strip cluster detected by the SSA. Perhaps the sentence can be re-phrased to clarify that this is what is happening. To me this would, again help the text match what is later presented in Figure.4. I think it would also be helpful if your sentence made it clear that any data compression (clutsering) on the L1 path happens in the MPA. It is kind of alluded to in the text and Figure.4 but not explicitly stated anywhere. Used this opportunity to define centroid and will try to be consistent with its use going forward. Line 58 : "detector under test (DUT)" : Personally I've only ever seen "DUT" being used to refer to a device under test and not a detector under test. Done Line 69 : "Each chip’s stub data lines, intended to pass cluster locations to the MPA in the PS module, are instead connected to the other chip..." : I realize this isn't relevant to the paper, but for my own curiosity. What then happens to the centroid data from the first chip? Does this mean that using a 2-SSA module to study the centroid formation is only possible from the second chip? Lateral lines now introduced with SSA chip, and this is now correctly stating that the lateral lines are circularly connected. Figure 5 [Caption] : "The SSAs are bump bonded (PbSn) to the sapphire interposers through which are in turn bump" : this sentence doesn't sound quite right to me. Fixed Figure 5 [Caption] : "HV to bias the sensor is provided by the PCB" : does this mean that there is a component on the SSA test board that produces the -350 V? Changed to “Transmitted through the PCB.” Line 78 : "can be tuned against an external reference to ensure a known charge is injected" : nowehere in the text does it explicitly state that the 52 fF capacitor in the charge injection circuit is per front-the end, which makes the point of this step a little un-clear. Also, if the tuning of the external reference was done on the module then please quote what the channel to channel variation in the injected charge was. Clarified, including that the external tuning is done so that each channel receives the same charge. Unfortunately the pre-tuning values are not recorded. Line 95 : " The DUT was placed in a 120 GeV proton beam with between 100 000 and 200 000 particles per spill and was triggered by and shared a 40 MHz clock with the telescope" - technically aren't both the telescope planes and the DUT sent a trigger from CAPTAN when the scintillators? Correct: fixed in text. Line 98 : "... so that the phase between the beam and telescope clocks remains fixed.." : I don't think that this sentence clearly described the motivation behind obtaining a 40 MHz clock derived from the accelerator clock. My understanding is that the point of using a 40 MHz clock (which is actually used by the FC7 to produce a 320 MHz clock for the SSA; the SSA uses the 320 MHz clock and the incoming T1 stream to generate the on-chip 40 MHz used for sampling) is to ensure that the phase between the sampling clock in the SSA and the incoming particles is fixed. If the FC7 was designed to run on 53 MHz then there would be no need to divide the accelerator clock by anything; but its not. Thinking about it, perhaps its better to move this sentence (and add the necessary explanation) to the following section? Added a description of the clock details (and motivation). Should be clear now? I now realize that at no point in the text has the interface card been described. Perhaps its worth adding a short description here? Added Line 106 : "Fifteen of these lines are for the cluster centroids which are sent at each 40 MHz clock cycle" : I thought there were 8 centroid lines per SSA; so wouldn't that make sixteen? If the interface card required some of these to be not connected then please explicitly state that. I realize this is a detail that might only be picked up by those familiar with the OT readout chains but its worth pointing out since earlier in the text you also mention that each chip can send up-to 8 clusters to an MPA. Also, I am now confused by the previous statemtent in Line 69 describing what happens to the centroid lines from each chip. Please clarify. Done. Indeed: not enough connections on the IC --> PCB connectorLine 112 : "Both the DUT and the telescope are read out using the ”Off the Shelf” dataacquisition program" : I thought I mentioned this in a previous draft; but perhaps I forgot. Please re-phrase this to clarify that OTSDAQ is not used to readout the 2-SSA module. I am not sure what is done for the telescope, but I know for a fact that the readout of all OT prototypes is done by the Ph2ACF. OTSDAQ is responsible for controlling the start/stop signals that are sent to the Ph2ACF, but the complete readout chain (SW+FW) is using tools developed by the CMS-DAQ group.
Fixed: (including Ph2 intro in preceding paragraph).Equation 1 : is possible to make sure that the {N} appearing here matches the {N} that is in the text?
Fixed? I think this is the best we can do? Line 120 : "The noise {N} is sampled from a gaussian with width 830 electrons" : I find this confusing : is this just a typo and should instead be describing the mean of this gaussian? I would have assumed that the noise would be sampled from a gaussian distribution whose mean corresponds to the mean noise measured on the module, and whose width is proportional to the RMS in the noise measured across all channels in the module? Can you please clarify why that isn't the case? The noise can also bring down the reconstructed charge, so it is a gaussian centered at 0 with a width of 830 electron. I’ve made this clear in the paper text now. Table 1 : can you please clarify where the errors in the fit parameters come from? Done (they are jut fit error) Line 141 : ".. or which passed through the DUT without registering a hit " : In my opinion this is no longer alignment but an actual part of the data analysis later. To me the point of the alignment is to ensure that you have a good description of where the track is pointing to on the DUT; to then ensure that any subsequent analyses that involve efficiencies are meaningul. We agree. Removed the last bit. 5.3 Timing efficiency In your response to my previous round of comments you explain that you would prefer to only show results after the full alignment; which I totally understand. However, you also say that you do not have the plot I asked for but in the text you refer to the online calculation of the working point. So I assume there must be a log somewhere with this information? The reason I am insisting is that it might help show the importance of selecting the working point with full tracking rather than just a crude estimate of the efficiency. Also, I understand that the shape of the curve is still not well understood, but I think being clear about that in the text is preferable to presenting the plot as is with no explanation at all. We really prefer not to show ANY data that didn’t go through the full offline (validated) reconstruction. We have the statement of sub-optimality of using an approximate efficiency calculation, but adding more information here will not lead to a better understanding, especially since the actual efficiency plateau is 95%, had some jitter, and in the end the optimal point is just 1 dac unit off (and is likely to raise as many questions as it answers). Line 167 : " This trigger signal is provided by the beam telescope" : I think that both the DUT + the telescope receive a trigger from the scintillator. Done. Line 168- Line173 : "Since the processing and distribution of the trigger.....of the timing offset" : The way that the text now reads seems to imply that what you show in Figure 9. is somehow related to the latency; whereas the data shown in 9. is on data collected for a fixed latency. Please modify the text to make sure that this distinction is clear. Done.Figure 12 : My understanding is that the SSA can indicate up-to 24 clusters with at least one strip that has passed the second threshold; and that the HIP flag indicates that at least one strip in that cluster has passed the second threshold : "The HIP flag generation consists in a fast hit clustering followed by a detection logic able to verify if the high ionizing particle threshold was passed for at least one strip within each cluster" So I am not sure that its clear to me that the two threshold are completely independent as you state in your comments; but I might be wrong there! Can you please clarify? In addition, if its the case that the HIP flag only indicated that one of the strips in clusters has passed the second threshold then I think I need some more explanation for how the 'efficiency' shown here is calculated for multi-strip clusters.
The efficiency is calculated on a per-track basis, not a per strip, so there should be no ambiguity? (i.e. we clearly know for each track whether or not it was flagged as a HIP) The two thresholds are independent. I think this is clear as currently stated, so no changes made. Line 189 : "pointing towards the sensor", can you please be more precise in how you define this? Changed to "crossing the sensor". Line 200 : "A decent qualitative description can be reached based on this simplified model.." : do you have any explanation for why the model seems to systematically overestimate the efficiency at higher thresholds? And underestimate the fraction of 1-strip clusters at low threshold (seems to do a better job of this at 0 degrees compared to to other angles)? Can these two deviations from the data be related and help improve the model? Or point to what physical effects can be included to improve the model itself? We don't have answers to either question. It's possible they are related. Figure 11 : If I zoom in on the plot it seems like the points in green (13°) seem to be trending down at low thresholds? If that is the case then why is that happening? We aren’t sure. A possibility is that the beam shifted during the run, so that the efficiency measurement isn’t perfect? Not sure what to comment. Line 212 : " The resolutions of the telescope (modelled s a Gaussian distribution) is extracted from the simple model by being fit for simultaneously across all angles" : please clarify, I don't really understand this sentence as written here.Removed the word “simultaneously” which seems to have confused everybody.
- „a pixel sensor“ „a macro-pixel sensor“
_Done
- „stacked over each other“ perhaps „stacked on top of each other“ or some other re-phrasing
_Done
- „SSA provides“ „The SSA provides“
_Done
- „with MPA“ „with the MPA“
_Done
- line 1: the comma needs to be removed
_Done
- line 4: „the total“ „a total“
_Done
- line 7: „compared to“ : this makes no sense, maybe you mean „to be compared to“ ?
_Done
- line 9: „composed of a pixel layer and a strip layer” : I think one should talk here of “detectors”, not “layers”
Done
- line 9: comma needed before “will”
_Done
- line 9: reference [4] is a conference report. This is not appropriate. Please replace with Ref. [2] plus the Phase-1 pixel paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-02221D/16/02/P02027
_Done
- line 10: “from the beam“ : maybe better to say „from the beam line“
_Done
- line 12: distance before „n_eq“ should be a small space
_Done
- line 12: I think the comma is not needed Done - line 22: typo „wireboned“ Done - line 22 and many places: be consistent with hyphenation of „bump-bonding“ and „wire-bonding“; I would prefer with hyphen, please seach for string „bond“ and fix everywhere Done - line 24: „Concatenator“ „Concentrator“ !! Done - line 26: please refer to Fig. 3 earlier in this paragraph, before you describe the PS module, so that one can look at the figure in parallel already. Done - line 26: „diagram“ „drawing“ No longer relevant due to other changes - line 27: here you introduce HIP but you do not say what the acronym means in words. Either introduce it properly here or introduce the acronym later. Done - line 28: „The SSA“ Done - line 29: „the MPA“ Done - line 34: „two-SSA module“ „the 2xSSA module“ Done - Fig. 3: typo „Senor“ in the drawing labels Done- Fig. 3 caption:
- I think „diagram“ is not the right word (twice), maybe „Exploded view“ and then „drawing“ or so.
- „pixel sensors“ „the pixel sensor“
- „of PS“ „of a PS“
Done - in general it is confusing to say „starting from the topmost layer” and then “in the central part of the module”. In fact you are NOT starting in the top-most layer, which shows the hybrids. It would be better to mention all parts. We didn't label all components but made sure to point out that we are only noting “key” components. - line 40: „built with 65 nm CMOS technology” “designed in 65 nm CMOS technology” or perhaps “fabricated in 65 nm CMOS technology” Done - line 40: 65\,nm Done - line 43: “and for the“ „and one for the“ Done - line 44: it is not clear what Q is, the threshold? in units of charge? It seems also not needed here. No longer relevant - line 45: here you introduce MIP again It seem to be the first. We may have introduced HIP? - line 49: fix distances in 200\,ps and 25\,ns Done - line 53: comma needed before „is shown“ Done - Fig. 4: You have „1.6 Gb/s“ in the sketch for the stub readout, but in practise this is 5 x 320 Gb/s, correct? I would find this more clear, because on the FEH data are not transmitted at 1.6Gb/s. Done - Fig. 4: typo „Stup“ Done - line 66: „the sensor thickness is 240 µm” : you never say if this is the active or physical thickness. Please clarify this, and quote both numbers. We’ve specified that this is the active thickness. The physical thickness is essentially identical (the sensor was thinned). We note this as well.- line 68: fix distance in 350V
done - line 69: “where” “were” Done - line 75: “standard discriminator threshold“ : it is here not very clear what you mean with „standard“. Probably you mean „the one that is not the HIP threshold“. Please find a better way to phrase this, or drop „standard“. Done - Fig. 5, caption: - the word „through“ in 5th line should be removed Done- in line 5: „which are in turn bump bonded“ : I think this should read „wire-bonded“ !
Done - line 88: no comma here Done - line 89: „and cover an active area”: it is not clear who is covering. Start a new sentence. You are squeezing too much into one sentence here. Done - line 94: “which have the better resolution” : this cannot be understood because you never explain in what direction the strips are pointing. Explain in lines 88/89 or so how the strip sensors and pixel sensors or the telescope are oriented. Done: Should be clear now that the stip planes alternate between horizontal and vertical, and have higher resolution per plane than the pixels (and that our DUT is right in hte middle of them) - Fig. 6, caption: repetition “at the at the“ DoneSection 3.3
- line 102: „Kinetex“ „Kintex“ !
Done - line 104: „via I2C “ „via the I2C “ Done - line 109: please write the x in „2xSSA“ as you do at other places, not as the letter x but as \times I guess Done - line 113: „... based on artdaq [14], andmaintained by Fermilab and processed with theMonicelli software package“ : this sentence is grammatically not correct, the data are processed, not the program, you are trying to say too much in 1 sentence. Split in two sentences. Done - line 118: typo in „interstip“ Done - line 118: is the forward ref to Fig. 11 really needed here? Done - line 118, page 6, 2nd line: „and an supply voltage“ „and a supply voltage“ Done - line 118, page 6, middle: „a charges may diffuse“ „charges may diffuse“ Done - line 18, page 6, lower half: „and subtracting it from the adjacent strip” : I think this should be “and subtracting it from the traversed strip” Done - line 18, page 6, 4 lines above formula: typo “Ths noise“ Done - line 120: „x_e is“ „and x_e is“ Done - line 121: „gaussian“ „Gaussian distribution“ Done - Table 1: in 2nd column you may want to add brackets around the values, e.g. (20.6+/-0.2)ke Done - line 126: I am not sure „Data preparation“ fits well as a section title. You are also showing nice cluster distributions here... Done: Changed to "hit clustering" - line 146: suggest to remove „seen in Fig. 6“ : it does not read well and you are refering to Fig. 6 in line 148, which is sufficient Done - line 148: „around the rotated x axis“: I don‘t understand what you mean with „rotated“ here, perhaps the word can simply be dropped? Done - Fig. 8, caption: in the last line „of y-position“ „of the y-position“ Done - line 186: „and counted as a matched hit if they are” : again this is grammatically and semantically not working, what is counted? Perhaps “and hits are counted as matched if they are”. Or simply split into two sentences. Done - line 202, line 204: twice “This information”, rephrase one of them Done - line 204: “can be combined with data from other modules in CMS” : I think you mean “subdetectors” here instead of “modules” Done - Fig. 12: This figure would profit from a more informative legend. Suggestion: 0°, standard threshold ... / 0°, HIP threshold ... Done - line 212: typo “s a” “as a” Done - line 213: the word “for” needs to be removed Done - line 216, Fig. 13, Fig. 14: I am still confused by the factor of 1/cos alpha that is taking into account the angle dependence of the telescope resolution. Why are you quoting the value for alpha = 0° in all sub-figures of Fig. 13 and 14? Should the sigma in those plots not be corrected for the angle? Done - Fig. 14, caption: in last line use proper minus sign in “-50µm” Done - line 239: spurios space after “18°”. Done - add always a comma before the DOI, as you do in [1] Done - protect the capitalization of the title, this affects [5], [6], [13] Done - you are almost always missing the page number(s) of the article, meaning that your journal reference is incomplete! This affects [2], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [16] Done [1] It seems you are just referring to the 1st chapter of the report – why?? It should read: “High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC) : Preliminary Design Report”, the report number is CERN-2015-005, and the DOI is also not corret, it should be https://cds.cern.ch/record/2116337Abstract:
..for the upgrade of the CMS Outer Tracker for the High Luminosity LHC.
Need to introduce „PS-modules“ or just say modules
The SSA provides…
Done Not sure you can talk about „Level-1 trigger accept“ and „Level-1 trigger primitives“ in the abstract without introducing these terms. I suggest to rephrase to a more generic statement. Simplified and Unjargoned Results from the first prototype module.. Done L4: a total integrated luminosity Done L5: is planned to be > will be Done L6: Suggest to add a few lines introducing the CMS trigger system. Done L8: „these requirements“ now seem to refer to the sentence about the trigger system. Suggest to rephrase. Done L8: repetition of „entire“ „entirely“ Done L9: CMS has several layers of pixels and strip detectors! Done L10: write at least „within a radius of 20cm from the beam“ Done L12: the 2.3x10^16 refer to the IT, so what you write is a bit confusing. Clarified by adding both numbers for both trackers subsystems. L19: digitised by a > read out by a Done L20: and have been extensively described > , described in Ref. Done L25: this is the first time you mention that there are eight chips on each side of the module. Suggest to start by: „A module is read out by two times eight SSAs and MPSs…“ From the sentence it is not very clear whether the CIC is for 8 or 16 SSA/MPA. Done Fig 3: Add description of all parts that are shown in the picture to the caption (e.g. CIC, connector, aux chips). We prefer to keep it to the “main” pieces (the text explains the other structure). To make this work, we’ve noted in the caption that we are describing “key components”. We’ve also noted the CIC, since it’s labeled in the bottom diagram. L27: no need to stress that it is the only one. Just say: „The SSA is capable of…“ Done L28/29: The SSA… the MPA… Done L30: a sensor Done L33: I would argue that the measurements depend on the performance of both, sensor and readout chip. The measurements do, but we still think the “primary goal” here is the front-end (the sensor itself has been tested elsewhere). L34: the two-SSA module Done L43: L1 has not been introduced. Done L43-47: Suggest to split in two sentences. Done L56,57: What do you mean by this? We think this is clear? What isn't understood?L60: the trajectories are only known once you measure them with a telescope. Suggest to rephrase
Changed to “measured and exploited”.
L69: above you say that the MIP threshold is 4500e. Why do you operate at 6200e?
Discussed in meeting. We chose a higher threshold to be absolutely immune to noise (with hindsight we could have done with a lower threshold, but that’s the data we collected).
L70,71: What do you mean by this?
Should be clear now.
Fig 5: … interposers which… (remove „through“)
Done
Fig 5: Split in two sentences: „… (PCB). The prototype modules has a similar configuration…“
DoneL73: individual channels of the front-ends
DoneL76: using a known signal
DoneL77: not „on-chip“?
DoneL81: remove „Fermilab“ from the sentence. It already says „at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory“
Done (although I removed FNAL - technically that is an old term and Fermilab is just Fermilab) L95: the information about the energy and the number of particles per spill should come earlier (after L82) DoneL107: I stumbled on this already on
L51.. not sure if the nomenclature is optimal. I would not call the path that is sent based on a L1 accept „L1-trigger data“, as it is not data that is used by the L1 trigger, but offline (if I understand correctly).
Fixed? No longer calling this the “trigger” path, and have defined L1 early on (noting there that it is the data “released” by the trigger) L110: Add a reference for Ph2ACF. Done Page 6, middle of paragraph: „….between two strips charges may diffuse…“ Done„.. in the adjacent strip (and subtracting it from the actual transversed strip).“
DoneL121: „..Gaussian with a width of 830 electrons.."
DoneL122: What do you mean by "if the proton does not traverse them“?
I’m not sure why we wrote this. Removed. (We had just meant that in theory there is charge sharing even in further strips, but it’s tiny)._L130/131: I find this statement a bit confusing, as also the L1 hits are from the SSA.
_Fixed by specifying that we are talking about the information missing in the stub data path.
L132: Decide if you want to use consistently „electrons“ or „e-„ in the units and then use it everywhere. DoneL134: as a function
DoneL175: above 6200e was „the standard threshold“? Suggest to remove „standard“
L191: remove „standard“. I now realise that by „standard“ you mean „not HIP“. Suggest to find a better name.
Done: changed to "detection"L195: Why „two-strip clusters“? Any larger size clusters as well, no?
DoneL204/205: This sentence should be moved to the paragraph in the introduction where you describe the HIP threshold.
DoneL212: The resolution… is…
DoneL243-245: To me, this conclusion is too strong. There are many more tests needed to fully validate the front-end design and in particular also the Ph2 ACF DAQ system.
DoneAbstract:
L4: The SSA
Done
clarify here that the focus in this paper is on the hit data (triggered) path and not stubs
I think we don’t need to be so specific now: the new text clarifies that the stub performance (as much as can be checked on just an SSA) is ok.
L3: accumulating a total DoneL6: increased latency of 12.5 us → 'will allow a latency of up to 12.5us' sounds more appropriate
DoneL7: is it not 4.8us max latency at present? (i forget!)... please check
It’s 3.6 or 3.8 us (depends when/who you ask), which I rounded up to 4um (similar to how it was presented in the TDR). I propose we keep it 4um.L8: remove “entirely”
DoneL9: Pixel and Strip detector
Done (I put "systems")L20-21: fix formating
DoneL22: wireboned → wirebonded
DoneL24: concatenator → concentrator
DoneL24: i think the lpgbt does that - please check
DoneL26: the SSA is also
Done (though the sentence has changed a bit)L28: The SSA
DoneFig 3 caption: not the SSA - the hybrid!
DoneL34: the two-SSA module
DoneL43: and one for hip flagging
DoneL43-44: ...can be programmed - with typical thresholds designed to detect…
DoneL46: “,” after threshold
DoneL52: latencies “of up to”
DoneL53: latter --> on the triggered (L1) data path.
Done_Figure 4: layers --> something else (several suggestions from ARC)
-->both SSA and MPA readout functionality.
_Done
L56: especially --> including
Done L56 timing --> synchronization? DoneL57: various prototypes
DoneL60: “the incoming”
DoneS3.1: mention purpose of interposer
Done Capt F5: strips are wire bonded! And remove “through” DoneL75: additional → configurable
DoneL77 Onboard → on chip
DoneL78: to account for process variations.
DoneL85: No need to mention strips aand pixels
DoneL86: remove second half of sentence altogether
DoneL88: with a strip pitch of
DoneL92: beam test COMMA
DoneL97: triggered by the telescope. A 40MHz clock, common to both the DUT and telescope, is obtained…
DoneL98: this yields 39.75MHz, so not fixed phase or...
You’re right, we’ve now been more specific about this (actually we did 25.15ns instead of 25ns, so the phase is fixed, we just stretch the clock a tiny bit)L101: The DUT data acquisition...
DoneL102: Kintex
DoneL103: through a custom ...FMC
DoneL103++: bit confused about the interface here, certainly worth mentioning early that you have an electrical interface (as opposed to optical). Also instead of taking about the individual chips, its better to refer to the module itself as an 'entity' i think.
DoneL106: on each
DoneL106++: some more confusion here about the stub lines as you mentioned earlier that they werent connected on the interposer?
Should be clear nowL111: reference?
DonePage 6 - middle of paragraph: ...two strips charge may diffuse...
DoneL124: proton surely?!
Done!L131: bit confused about this, surely SSAs output this info?
We meant that the SSA centroids (if we had taken them directly from the stub data path) only return position. We’ve added this to the sentence to make it clear what we are talking about. L173++: there are different effects to take into account here - the latency (which you talk about) and the sub-25ns timing offset (where i cant see any mention of it). Since you show the plot in fig9 i think it needs to be introduced, and then you need to say how this was tuned (ie. using some external delay logic? or post selection if you are able to record TDC info?) Not TDC, but clock deskewing available on the SSA. Now described. L202-205: this is fine (if repeating yourself) but probably more relevant in the intro where this thresh is introduced to give it some context Moved to intro L212: as a Done_L213: being fit for simultaneously ?
_Removed “Simultaneously” which seems to have confused everybody.
L235: performance cant be tested! measured? evaluated?
DoneL244-245: maybe too strong at statement, so best to be specific about what is validated, and what remains to be validated and what the plans in CMS are to do this.
Done?[1] Use CDS reference instead of these two
Done[2] JINST 3 (2008), S08004,
Done[3] surely youre looking for the technical proposal here - rather than the scope document?
Done[5] Caps - CMS CBC 2S
[5] put the DOI at the end and be consistent with formatting (e.g. ref 4 has no https://doi.org, but the href works, which is nicer)
[6] Caps - CMS CBC HL-LHC ASIC
[6] DOI - same as ref 5 Done (they are different)[7] (2016), C01054
DOI formatting
Done [9] fix author list and Phase Done[11] (2017, P06018,
And remove jun
DOne [12] Fermilab Test Beam Facility / DOI format Done[13] Caps - FC7 AMC DAQ CMS and remove 03 and (2015), C03036,
Done[16] Landau and DOI formatting
Done