Difference: CMS-BPH-10-002-001 (2 vs. 3)
Revision 32010-10-25 - dkcira
| Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Report number CMS-BPH-10-002-001 Version 1Title: Prompt and non-prompt J-psi cross sections in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV | ||||||||
| Line: 11 to 11 | ||||||||
CommentsAdd your name and comments | ||||||||
| Added: | ||||||||
| > > |
Dorian(i) physics/content/clarity - p 3, Table 1. These numbers are so small, do they affect anything?- p 3-4. I am not sure why we switch from pseudo-rapidity to rapidity. Maybe this is logical, I have no experience with this type of analysis. - line 202-203. Seems strange that the correction is applied then the whole of it is taken as systematic uncertainty. - line 222-223. Does the fine-grained binning help to determine better center of mass, or what is otherwise its advantage? - p 11, Figure 3. Is there need for any discussion of the similarity of the pT dependence in the different rapidity ranges? - p 15. Table 7. Why are all systematic errors symmetric? - line 349, conclusions. 'reasonable agreement between the data and the theory curves'. It depends on what the criterium is, but I would have said that none of the theoretical curves describes the measured cross sections. (ii) editorial - line 3 and elsewhere in the text. "J/Psi's" should not be used for the plural since it can be confused with the possessive form. Simply J/Psis would be better. - line 100-101. Use ~ between 'fit' and reference 27 such that it is not broken in a new line. - p 4, Figure 1. Labels too small, especially the rapidity ranges. - line 144. '; for' -> '. For' - line 176-177. Repetition of the word 'also' within the sentence. Remove the first occurrence at the beginning of the sentence - line 225. 2*s: 'bremstrahlung' -> 'Bremsstrahlung' or 'bremsstrahlung' - line 241. remove comma after 'section'. - p 10, Table 4, caption, 1st line. Remove comma after 'bin' - p 10, Table 4, caption, 4th line. 'Only for' -> 'For' - p 13, Figure 4. write the pT ranges inside the plots to make clear the difference between left and right plot. add y-labels to the plots below with the pull. add a key in the legend to explain that the points are the data. - line 293, remove comma after 'modules' - line 326. CEM is a model and a theory? I would have left just model and removed the word 'theory'. - p 16, Table 8, caption, line 3. 'Only for' -> 'For' - in some places the 'T' in pT is not roman. please do a global search of 'p_' and fix this | |||||||
Artur:1) l14: "historical discrepancy": please rephrase, sounds funny. 2) l51: remove rapidity coverage of muon detector: already descried on line 38 3) l56-57: while interesting piece of information, I don't see how relevant it is that there were 1.6 collisions per crossing. 4) l58: "good quality data" is not immediately clear, would suggest to replace with something like "Tracker, the Muon and the luminosity measurement detectors were fully operational". 5) l61: "without any further processing" sounds unclear as to what processing you are referring to. Add a statement about HLT passthrough. 6) line 67: remove "also". 7) l68-74: as a non-expert, it is not clear to me if the MC generators listed here have all the improvements listed on lines 15-19. It would be nice to clarify. 8) l84: define "central" and "forward" in terms of (pseudo)rapidity. 9) l91: would recommend changing "cuts are applied…" to e.g.: "To reduce backgrounds from fake muons …, muon tracks are required to pass the following requirements". 10) l92: I guess it is at least two tracks in the pixel layer, not exactly two? 11) l101: Which mass distributions were used in the fit? I imagine the inclusion of J/Psi into this fit could bias the cross-section measurement? Please clarify how the correction is made, and why/how it does not cause a bias. 12) l144-147: not clear the choice of polarization for non-prompt. Could you please clarify a bit why usage of babar measurement is directly transferable here, and how the comparison of that with EvtGen is a proper evaluation of systematic? What are the settings used in EvtGen? 13) l150, 175 and 181: What values do you assign to these uncertainties? 14) l153: You need to rephrase this sentence: different implies a comparison with something, while there is none here. Would suggest dropping the first sentence, and rephrase the second sentence a little bit. 15) l161: can you motivate the choice of 20%? Maybe a reference? 16) l185: I guess it needs to be "eff_off_track is the muon identification efficiency". | ||||||||
View topic | History: r6 < r5 < r4 < r3 | More topic actions...
Copyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback