Back To Main Page



Abstract

maybe "uses fully-reconstructed top-quark mass" could be "uses two fully-reconstructed top-quark mass values". To avoid confusing a reader who looks only at Abstract and Figs.

Done

p 2 l 2: omit the sentence "The measurement ...". Maybe replace with something like "The top mass is a fundamental parameter of the Standard Model."

Done

p 2 l 11: omit "to".

Done

p 3 l 13: needs "of the stricter".

Done

p 3 l 15: maybe "...from QCD multijet events and from electroweak..." - if that is correct.:

Done

p 3 lines 23-26, on the background estimate. I think that more information is needed. How do we know that 3-jet events have negligible ttbar presence? Is this a MC study result? Can an upper limit be quoted? And is it a Monte Carlo study result that allows extrapolation of b-tag probability from 3-jet to 4-6-jet events? If, for example, one background source has negligible 3-jet events but has many 4-jet events, the extrapolation will not work?

Yes, this is a MC study result, but we did not intend to put a upper limit here. Internal note page 5 to page 11 is dedicated to validate the methodolegy, including the extrapolation. The extrapolation on 4-6 jet events works when we apply an iterative correction to these events, as described in the internal note.

p 4 l 8: omit comma after "values".

done

p 4 l 11 onwards: Draft says "... three variables....The first variable,..." We expect somewhere following an expanation of the second and third variables. But there is no mention of that. So, what are the second and third variables?

Proper words are added.

p 4 l 12 - 16: Here there are two definitions of m_jj. It may be better to first define it as calculated, and then mention the connection to the in situ constraint. Here also is the first indication (outside of the abstract) that the events are assumed to be "lepton+jets" events (as in "the hadronically decaying W"). Could a reader be told earlier that the signal events are predominantly lepton+jets, and how we know that?

Mention of using 'lepton + jets" events is added in the introduction. m_jj is used as one of the three estimators, W_jj is a constraint for fitting M_t^reco.

p 5 l 7-9: Maybe reword slightly as "The fourth term constrains the invariant mass of the missing objects (which contain both the charged lepton and the neutrino of the candidate events) and the bottom quark (that is regarded as coming from the daughters of the same top-quark decay) to be consistent within the top-".

Done

p 5 l 15: the "extra observable" must be the third variable - see p 4 l 11. Note that the figure captions use the term "kinaeatic variables".It would be good to use the same name in all places.

Done

p 5 l 20: "dominant" is too strong. Maybe say "leading".

Done

p 6 l 17: The check on the pulls should be mentioned here.

Done

p 7 l 14: Note "three observables" - see earlier comment

Done

p 7 l 5: It is hard to understand how a shape is weighted "up and down". It would be good to add some explanation.

p 8 figure caption: "top" -> "upper" and "bottom" -> "lower". Also in Fig 2 caption.

Done

p 8 l 3: maybe 'done" -> "presented".

Done

p 8 l 9: "yielded" instead of "yields".

Done

p 8 l 9-10: It may be interesting to give separate stat and syst uncertainties in comparing the ref [9] mass value with the present one.

Done

A question: Was a likelihood fit made to each of the different event sets? If so, were any differences seen? (Note, if not done, I am not asking that the separate fits be done.)

Yes. Internal note page 34 shows some of the cross checks. Not significant difference was seen.