Difference: PaperReadingWjets (7 vs. 8)
Revision 82011-10-21 - DaniloEnoqueFerreiraDeLima
| Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The draft document may be found at this URL: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1390459 | ||||||||
| Line: 32 to 33 | ||||||||
I Introduction | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | 33 strike 'the full 2010 data sample' -- lumi is the interesting bit now.
<-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| > > | 33 strike 'the full 2010 data sample' -- lumi is the interesting bit now. <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| L26 – “Thus, ” | ||||||||
| Line: 68 to 69 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | 139 The use of online and on-line is not consistent. It is also imprecise to say online - it should be defined in terms of the algorithms and corrections in the introduction. Similarly for offline. Saying selected "online" is just saying triggered? <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| > > | 139 The use of online and on-line is not consistent. It is also imprecise to say online - it should be defined in terms of the algorithms and corrections in the introduction. Similarly for offline. Saying selected "online" is just saying triggered? <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| L150 – Suggest removing “as required in this analysis” | ||||||||
| Line: 75 to 75 | ||||||||
IV SIMULATED EVENT SAMPLES | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > | ||||||||
<-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } -->
L190 – at --> for a pT... | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > | L191 and 194 -> Is there a reference for "MLM matching scheme" and "CKKW matching scheme"? | |||||||
| 195-200 use semicolons instead of commas to separate the list items. 212 Is the min bias here matched to what was measured (by Glasgow?!) | ||||||||
| Line: 94 to 99 | ||||||||
| line 271: use \mbox to prevent wrap around of the inequality for JVF | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | 271 Since the cut on JVF >.75, does that mean we have an effective rapidity cut on eta >2.5? But we see later plots going out fairly far... <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| > > | 271 Since the cut on JVF >.75, does that mean we have an effective rapidity cut on eta >2.5? But we see later plots going out fairly far... <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| L271 – accounting --> counting? | ||||||||
| Line: 122 to 127 | ||||||||
|
For jets faking electrons the reliability is much worse because the simualtion has to get fine details of the ahdronic shower correct (e.g. every variable that we cut on in the electron finder) | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | 372-381 Confusing as to what is actually changed. Perhaps the cuts should just be given in a table. Fig 4: This one has a supressed zero but Fig 2 does not. The qcd distributions are not smooth and should either be smoothed (interpolate with sys on interpolation) or discarded with some upper limit for sys. <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| > > | 372-381 Confusing as to what is actually changed. Perhaps the cuts should just be given in a table. Fig 4: This one has a supressed zero but Fig 2 does not. The qcd distributions are not smooth and should either be smoothed (interpolate with sys on interpolation) or discarded with some upper limit for sys. <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| L383 – match --> matched. | ||||||||
| Line: 139 to 143 | ||||||||
| L481-L483 – Suggest re-phrasing. | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | 490 The background events with a muon and an energetic jet dont survive? To what degree and what happens when we have 2fb? <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| > > | 490 The background events with a muon and an energetic jet dont survive? To what degree and what happens when we have 2fb? <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| L499 – multi-jet --> multijet. | ||||||||
| Line: 152 to 155 | ||||||||
| Fig 15 caption “left: electron channel, right: muon channel” should be “top: electron channel and bottom: muon channel” | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | Fig 16 caption left -> top, right->bottom.
<-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| > > | Fig 16 caption left -> top, right->bottom. <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 – I think first line of caption needs re-phrasing. Maybe: “Uncorrected pseudorapidity difference between...” or something like that... | ||||||||
| Line: 168 to 170 | ||||||||
| Fig 17: is this a linear or quadratic sum of the other systematics? It should say "linear" sum or "quadratic" sum Fig 18: The "no pythia" should be on this one and appears on others. Also the tick marks don't appear all thetime on all points. This is true of many figures. Fig 19: Was the ratio figure left out? Fig 20: Odd statistical issue in Blackhat-Sherpa for the first bin. Either need to rerun or remove the point but of course it is odd not to have all points matching data... VII Cross section results | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > | ||||||||
<-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } -->
L853 – distribution --> distributions. | ||||||||
| Changed: | ||||||||
| < < | 869 Would be good to reflect these conclusions in the abstract. Fig 26: In spite of what the abstract says, sherpa is very poor here <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| > > | 869 Would be good to reflect these conclusions in the abstract. Fig 26: In spite of what the abstract says, sherpa is very poor here <-- p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } --> | |||||||
| Figure 19 – In the caption you mention “and the ratio of theoretical predictions to data” but there is no such thing in the figure, or is it? | ||||||||
View topic | History: r11 < r10 < r9 < r8 | More topic actions...
Copyright © 2008-2025 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback