Difference: ReadingLepFlaVio (7 vs. 8)

Revision 82012-02-17 - DeepakKar

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="InternalPages"
Paper: Search for Lepton Flavor Violation in the emu Continuum
Line: 98 to 98
  4, line 33,: should reference 13 be a footnote instead?
Added:
>
>
Arthur's comments:

- Does CMS have any similar study published (I couldn’t find any after a quick check on their publications page)? If not, perhaps it would be worth mentioning this a “first” for the LHC already in the abstract (I noticed it is mentioned in the concluding paragraph).

-Fig.1 shows “one of the dominant Feynman diagrams” (l.33-34). How dominant is it compared to the second leading process (eg. ssbar down by a factor of 2? 10?) ? If not much more, perhaps it would be interesting to mention it in a more quantitative manner.

- pag.1, l.69: Are the factors 0.72 and 0.28 very obvious? If not you should add a reference to help readers know where they come from.

- pag.1, l.70: ref. 12 appears in the text before ref. 11 (which only shows up in pag. 3).

- pag. 2, l.17-19: Sentence “Application of beam...” sounds a bit strange. How about re-phrasing it as something a little more direct: “The luminosity measured in that period was ...” or something like that.

- pag.2, l.22: I think you need to be a bit more specific about “later run periods”. I mean, how relevant are they? Perhaps just saying that a small fraction of data was collected with the 22 GeV trigger...the point is “later run” is an unknown quantity for non-LHC readers...small, big, 10% of the luminosity, etc is more informative.

- pag. 3, l.35: “standard ATLAS tools” -> what does it mean for a non-ATLAS reader? Could you either replace this by something that tells something meaningful or just remove it, or add a reference.

Deepak's comments

P1, L12: I dont know if this is obvious for non-experts. Add a ref perhaps?

P1 L51: Which low energy experiments?

P1 L71: Do we really need "particle physics" apparatus?

P2 L21: later run periods: atlas jargon.

P2 L25: Was ATLAS ever fully operational?

P2 L37: Not clear how 18 GeV in L24 became 25 GeV here.

P2 L42: stringent - empty adjective.

P2 L69: Geant4?

P2 L78: What Pythia? six or eight? which tune?

P2 L87: May be it is common, but I dont like the word instrumental.

P2 L94: Suddenly pointing to a ref for a selection is inconsistent.

P3 L9: zero jets passing the selection critria

P3 L30: May be useful to state was was the baseline PDF used?

P3 L39: Just Herwig? (not with jimmy or H++)? Also Alpgen wih any PS generator?

P4 figures: Root cant do better than making m_t look so ugly ;-)? Also for 3, do we need to go to all the way to 1 TeV?

I did not check the citations.

 -- DeepakKar - 2012-02-14

-- AdrianBuzatu - 2012-02-15

 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2021 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback