From dmacqueen@physics.utoronto.ca Sat Jun 2 14:40:47 2001 Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 13:03:47 -0400 From: Dan MacQueen To: Raymond Culbertson , George Velev , Henry Frisch , John Yoh , Bob Blair Cc: cdf_people@physics.utoronto.ca Subject: Re: CDF Toronto comments on CDF/PUB/EXOTIC/PUBLIC/5450 Hi, Sorry for the delay in responding to your mail. Thanks again for taking our comments into consideration. Here our our responses to some of your points. On Thu, 10 May 2001, Raymond Culbertson wrote: > >Abstract: > >1) We suggest "charged leptons" rather than "leptons (e, mu, and tau)" > > The reason for keeping it is that we frequently (technically incorrectly) > read "charged leptons" as "e or mu" since they are so more frequently > analyzed. The listing makes it clear. We could drop the word leptons? That would also work. > >1) First paragraph: Are there one or two references which could be added > >here which discuss new physics in general at CDF? We don't think that it > >would be a good idea to add references for each possible type of new > >physics (as that would require another page of references at the end), > >but one or two references at the end of the paragraph might be useful. > > > We're having trouble finding these referecnes. Our SUSY review > is a good example, but only covers SUSY and is now 3+ years old. > We don't have any technicolor reviews. There are recent talks with > proceedings such as Ray's talk at DPF2000 which was "exotics searches" > but those only cover a few recent results quickly. Perhaps a reasonable > overview might be the PDG? Either the DPF2000 talk or the PDG (or both) would be a good place to direct readers seeking more information. > >3) We suggest "leptons (e, mu, and tau)" rather than the more generic > >"leptons" or "charged leptons" here, in order to make clear that all > >three flavours of charged leptons are searched for. > > Is it OK if we keep it that way both places? That would be OK. This is partly a style point anyway. > >2.2: > > > >1) Paragraph 1: The first sentence is worded ambiguously. It does not > >make it clear that there are two separate triggers used, and events must > >satisfy one of two possible trigger criteria. > > > We don't understand this. The sentence says "a pair or triggers" > and says that "one or both" must be satisfied. We can't find the wrong way > to read it, can you send that? Perhaps it would be clearer if you said "at least one of a pair of three-level triggers." This would make it obvious that you mean A, B, or A+B. The current wording could be misinterpreted as A or A+B. > >2) Paragraph 3: "A primary vertex ... is" -> "Primary vertices ... are". > >Since almost all events had multiple interactions, by the end of run Ib > >it would be better to re-phrase this to explain how generic primary > >vertices are reconstructed, without implying that there is only one per > >event > > > it now reads: > "Primary vertices for the $\ppbar$ collisions are > reconstructed in the VTX system and a primary vertex is selected as the > one with the largest total $|p_t|$ attached to it, followed by adding > silicon tracks for greater precision." This might be a run-on sentence. May we suggest: "Vertices for the $\ppbar$ collisions are reconstructed in the VTX system. A primary vertex is selected ..." > >1) The title of Sec. 2.4 is "B-quark tagging". There could be other kinds > >of tagging (we have B-flavour tagging in the CP/mixing world). It seems a > >bit too much jargon to assume that all tagging, from here on in the > >paper, is going to be b-quark tagging. Couldn't you include "b" to > >qualify tagging in the title of this section and where you use it > >subsequently? We recognise that this will mean there are alot more "b"s > >included in the text, but we think they are important for clarity. > > > > Since we haven't defined tagging at that point, I changed the > title to "B-quark Indentifcation". At one point we went through all > of the possibilities and chose this as the best by our judgement. > "b-quark tagging" is a little wordy, btag might have worked > as well, but I think we thought that was too informal. On the > other hand, if tag is real insider jargon, then it is neutral to an > outsider and we can define it and use it as we wish. If you think > it is very important, we can discuss it more. We think it should be explicitly made clear to the non-CDF reader that when you say "tagging" in this paper, you mean "b-quark tagging." This could be done either by adding a sentence explaining that "tagging" means "b-quark tagging" in section 2.4, if you think using "b-quark tagging" throughout is too wordy. > >3) p16: 2nd paragraph: the presentations of the systematics is unclear. > >Better say "50 %of the real photon fraction...". Where do you justify > >these 50%/100% numbers? > > > These are rough estimates from judgement. 50% as a nominal large > value. 100% from our experience with the met distribution in the > Monte Carlo. OK. Perhaps the sources of these estimates should be made clearer in the text. ------------------------------------------------------ Dan MacQueen -- Ph.D. student -- University of Toronto --- (416)978-6632 -- dmacqueen@physics.utoronto.ca --- ------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ cdf_toronto mailing list cdf_toronto@physics.utoronto.ca http://helios.physics.utoronto.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/cdf_toronto