Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMS Papers Reviews: CIT Comments
| ||||||||
Deleted: | ||||||||
< < |
Comments from Marat
There are some problems with the PDF: there are lines with no numbers, e.g. on pp. 3 and 5. Page 3, between lines 99 and 100: How exactly "the dependence of the peak shapes" on muon kinematics was studied, and how large was the associated systematics ? Lines 229-232: What was the motivation for Crystal Ball and Crystal Ball+Gaussian for the signal, was the dependence on the background parameterization studied at all ? Only a choice of a second order polynomial is mentioned for the background part. We know that the yield estimation can vary a lot in our pi0 studies. Therefore, this should be explained in more detail. As we can see in Table 3, the "Fit function" is a significant source of systematic uncertainty. Section 6.1, from the beginning: the method used for separating prompt and non-prompt decays appears to be confusing. As far as know, Chris had some questions about it, so I let him comment. Overall impression: this is a reasonable paper draft. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMS Papers Reviews: CIT Comments
| ||||||||
Added: | ||||||||
> > |
Comments from Marat
There are some problems with the PDF: there are lines with no numbers, e.g. on pp. 3 and 5. Page 3, between lines 99 and 100: How exactly "the dependence of the peak shapes" on muon kinematics was studied, and how large was the associated systematics ? Lines 229-232: What was the motivation for Crystal Ball and Crystal Ball+Gaussian for the signal, was the dependence on the background parameterization studied at all ? Only a choice of a second order polynomial is mentioned for the background part. We know that the yield estimation can vary a lot in our pi0 studies. Therefore, this should be explained in more detail. As we can see in Table 3, the "Fit function" is a significant source of systematic uncertainty. Section 6.1, from the beginning: the method used for separating prompt and non-prompt decays appears to be confusing. As far as know, Chris had some questions about it, so I let him comment. Overall impression: this is a reasonable paper draft. |
Line: 1 to 1 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Added: | ||||||||
> > | CMS Papers Reviews: CIT Comments
|