Difference: ReadingLepFlaVio (3 vs. 4)

Revision 42012-02-16 - JamesFerrando

Line: 1 to 1

META TOPICPARENT	name="InternalPages"

Paper: Search for Lepton Flavor Violation in the emu Continuum

Line: 62 to 62

would the present search also be able to improve on those exclusions?

Added:

>
>

C) What about signal processes like %$d \bar{d} \rightarrow \tau \bar{\mu}$% with leptonic tau decay, were they considered?

D) What about processes such as u %$\bar{b}\rightarrow e \mu$% are they perhaps constrained by B-physics measurements, if not why ignore them? (apart from the relatively small PDFs)

Specific comments:

page 1 line 42-43: "The diagram ...has the same cross section" probably better as "The process ... has the same cross section"

Added:

>
>

page 1 line 65-66: sloppy phrasing here, the strange PDFs don't suppress the %$ss \rightarrow e\mu$% process, without them it wouldn't happen at all, please reword.

page 1 line 69: More needs to be said about the 0.72 and 0.28, e.g. which PDF set is used to get this weighted sum, what is the associated uncertainty? How stable vs choice of alternative PDF? We need to know this to judge whether the limit vs coupling plot makes any sense.

references:

Changed:

<
<

I agree with Adrian on the JHEP references, I don't know however if the paper is following some established ATLAS convention

>
>

I agree with Adrian on the JHEP references, I don't know however if the paper is following some established ATLAS convention.

-- DeepakKar - 2012-02-14

View topic | History: r9 < r8 < r7 < r6 | More topic actions...