> suggest replace "jet energy scale factor" in abstract with e.g. an additional calibration factor
We prefer to keep "jet energy scale factor", because it has been used like this in all previous publications (esp. TOP-17-007).

> 7-10 split the other way around, i.e. first talk about production and decay then talk about how we classify the samples.
Rewritten: At the CERN LHC, top quarks are predominantly produced in quark-antiquark pairs (\ttbar) through the gluon fusion process and almost exclusively decay to a \cPqb~quark and a \PW~boson. Each \ttbar event can be classified by the decays of the daughter \PW~bosons. In the all-jets decay channel, only events where both $\PW$ bosons decay further into two quarks are considered.

> l 26-32 or so: could add value of latest LHC combination and/or world average here as well.
Added "Combining the results of several measurements using different final states, the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations reported values of $\mtop=172.84\pm0.70\GeV$~\cite{Aaboud:2016igd} and $\mtop=172.44\pm0.49\GeV$~\cite{Khachatryan:2015hba}, respectively."

(Also added the l+jets 13 TeV result in the introduction)

> no comments on 2, guessing it is standard. just this one:
> l59 does that "5 to 10%" need a reference ?!
This is taken from the suggested paragraphs (https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/CMS/Internal/PubDetector) and it looks like there is no reference forseen.

> l 81ff "provides and identification" -> provides an identification
Done

> l 89 contain..contained.suggest 2nd contained -> "localized" or so
Done

> l 65 and others: jet_6, could add to beginning e.g. The sixth jet, jet_6, (ordered in pT) .
[Assuming this was meant to be "l 92"] -> "The sixth jet (jet 6 ), ordered in p T , needs..."

> l 97 Personal taste: I think it is useful to know and start indicating it here that NNPDF3.0 is one of the first sets with the top quark data in it.
Added "This is one of the first PDF sets including total \ttbar cross-section measurements from ATLAS and CMS at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and $8\TeV$ as input."

> l 97 Is this really NLO only ? I thought we usually use highest one available, it may be off in normalization because of higher order then the MC process but the shape is typically more accurate of the real process. is it a typo or really NLO ?
This is about the PDF right? I am not an expert at all, but to my understanding there are PDF versions in LO and NLO to be used with the corresponding ME calculation order (Powheg = NLO in our case).

NNPDF30_nlo_as_0118 is also listed for Powheg here: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/CMS/PDFatCMS#PDF_used_in_CMS_Run_II_existing

> l 101 suggest to add the theoretical uncertainty into that number.
Since it has several components (scale/pdf+as/mass), partially asymmetric, it is not that nice to quote. Since it is not used at all, I think it would not add any relevant information.

> l 117 I agree with Mara here that it is helpful and not taking to much space to add the chi2 expression implemented in the kinematic fit directly here.
Done

> l 120/1 was there any study using all solutions and use a weighting of e^{chi2/2) or so ? I guess the resolution gets worse when doing so.but maybe there is a trade-off ?
TODO Hartmut check: In 8 TeV it has been checked and no real improvement was found, because most wrong assignments are wrong because a jet is missing (e.g. out of acceptance) and using more/all solutions cannot repair that.

> l 122 translated into a p-value of.
Done

> l 125 point to Figure 1 here.
Done

> l 132 is this a good number/measure ? I am guessing the QCD bg rises much faster towards small P_gof.
Of course it also decreases the background (purity 29% -> 75%), but background has not been introduced here yet. It's mentioned in 136, though.

> l 153 what is the typical statistical uncertainty ? < 1%, 5% 20% ? looking at Figure 1 and 2 I see bins that have reasonable number of events but "jumpy" uncertainty bands.is that the statistical component ?
No, the "jumpy" uncertainty bands are not due to the stat. bkg. uncertainty, but rather due to statistical fluctuations of the systematic signal samples. The relative stat. unc. of the background (wrt. to the total no. events) heavily depends on the phase space. In the bulk regions (e.g. top mass peak) it is completely negligible.

> fig3 why not shrink the y-axis so that one actually sees the points and error bars better ? there is a lot of empty white space in the plot, also the JSF legend entries should be oriented to not overlap with a vertical line making it harder to read/see - if avoidable.
The range was chosen to be able to directly compare with l+jets (where the offsets and slopes are larger).

Legends have been improved.

> l 201 "systematic variations" - sounds odd and slang to me.better spell out in more detail e.g. "variations in uncertainty of individual sources of systematic uncertainties" or so
-> "samples with variations of the individual systematic uncertainty sources"

> table 1 and enumeration: try to use same "category names", e.g. it is Jet energy correction in the list but table uses JEC.I know you do it because of space but try to be consistent and re-optimize space / column width if needed.
Done

> I guess JER numbers are not yet solid.
Right, we are working on it. But as shown in the last meeting, (fortunately) there is no real influence on the hybrid mass for the all-jets channel.

> l 262 pT in bold.
Done

> l 274 I guess this follows the "recent/new" approach in the TOP group from the jet shape analysis ?
TODO Hartmut? This is the latest prescription, but I don't know how it developed historically.

> l 284 - 290 even before unblinding I think we have to comment on the size of systematic uncertainty, namely the increase is owed to better prescription in studying CR but also others..or what drives the difference in 0.59 and 0.76 GeV between old and this measurement ?
Yes, CR is the crucial point here. It has been the same with l+jets and there has been a lot of discussion on how to formulate this "more advanced treatment of the modeling uncertainties". We will try to formulate something coherent with that statement. Probably also other members of the TOP group will comment on that at some point.

> figure 4 definitely zoom in on y-axis and get rid of all the white space.one does not see anything on this one.
[See comment before:] The range was chosen to compare with l+jets (and here also with all-jets). You can still see the error bars -- it's all close to zero, but thats good We can alter the plots for the paper, though, if you really think it would be very beneficial.

> l 314 lower that -> lower then that
-> "lower than those for..."

> l 325-327 even for the combined result the uncertainty is larger then the 8 tev result.some comments would be useful I think.

> l 340 also indicate "in agreement with ATLAS and world average" or so ?!
We will need to have an actual value to decide on the exact wording, but I added a comment to compare to those later.

> Figure 5: wouldn't this one be more illustrative ? i.e. reducing top uncertainty in the current Figure 5 changes little to the "interpretation" of this SM consistency test, while the suggested figure highlights potential hints of an evidence of a tension between SM fitted top quark mass and actual measurement ?!
>
> Figure 6 top right in this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01853
>
> but maybe there is to much "interpretation" needed for a CMS paper, and Roman/gfitter prefer to have this in glitter papers ?
We were actually rather thinking of including the top left plot of that (M_W), so we could quote an indirect M_W measurement and compare to the direct ones.

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version |  | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions...
Topic revision: r5 - 2018-06-01 - JohannesLange

 Home Sandbox Web P View Edit Account
 Cern Search TWiki Search Google Search Sandbox All webs Edit Attach
Copyright &© 2008-2022 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback