>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. > I went to change this and realized that this list is plural so we would have "e's, mu's, tau's" which just starts to stick out. I decided to keep it is as is. >> >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. > The more I pondered on this, the more I felt it wasn't necessary. At some point we consider it general knowledge and don't footnote. This feels like it is sufficiently large and broad topic that a reference just doesn't feel right. >> >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. > Done, that is better >> >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 ..." > Done >> >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. > I think the text of section 2.4 does this, explicitly defining a "tag". The only other information we might consider is adding "and `tagging' will not be used in any other sense" which seems overkill. >> >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 --- >------------------------------------------------------