Back To Main Page



Abstract

lines 4-5: The important physics in this paper is a measurement of top mass in an event sample that does not overlap the more-studied "dilepton", "all-hadronic" and "lepton+jets" event types at CDF. So I would replace "This analysis ....tau leptons" accordingly.

Done.

Abstract line 5: "and it takes use of fully" -> "The method uses fully ..."..

Done.

page 2 line 8-9: : This first para. seems too long. Maybe start a new para after "boson mass".

Previous papers have similar length, so for now we just leave it as it was.

page 2 line 11-13: the tau is a charged lepton. So some rewording is needed. Maybe "Each W boson subsequently decays into either a quark-antiquark pair or a lepton-neutrino pair. In this paper, .....".

Done.

page 2 line 15-17: omit "(lepton+jets events)" and "(all-hadronic events)".

Done.

page 2 l 16: Maybe a new sentence here, like "We also veto multi-jet events that are consistent with having two hadronically-decaying W's." Then "These vetos ensure ...".

Made slight changes to the sentence, the veto also excludes some lepton+jets events from other trigger.

page 2 line 30: it is ambiguous whether "these clusters" refers to exactly four clusters or to all clusters. - needs fixing..

all clusters, Done.

p 3 l 12: need to make clear wich jets are in the sum-over-jets under the sq root.

Done.

p 3 l 19:"network is trained" - will it be clear to a reader what events are used for the training?

p 3 l 25: here ref [9] is cited. But that reference refers to the much more informative PRD paper. Is there a reason for using [9] instead of the PRD paper? (PR D 84 032003 2011)

Fixed the reference.

p 3 l 26: It may help here to mention the assumptions involved here. As I understand, the assumptions are (a) the selected 3-jet events have zero ttbar events, (b) the event parameter distributions of the selected background events are the same in 4 or more jet events as in 3 jet events.

Modification done.

p 4 Table I : need to explain in the caption (or in the text) what the uncertainties are.

Done.

p 4 l 1: "estimated" -> "expected".

Done.

p 4 l 10: to be clear, say "t.tbar sample ...".if that is correct.

Done.

p 4 l 10-17: Here is some confusion. Simulated ttbar samples presumably allow all W decay modes. But line 12 says "the hadronically decaying W boson", implying just 1 W-to-hadrons decay. And line 17 says "lepton+jets channel". ?? Need to be clear which sample(s) is involved here. So, in Table 1, does "ttbar signal" mean (a) ttbar events that yield one hadronic decaying W and one leptonic decaying W, or (b) all ttbar events that pass the selection cuts? Maybe there is zero difference?

Since in lepton+jets channel there is only one W decays hadronically, it does't seem to have a conflict here. To be exact, the "ttbar signal" in table 1 comes from all ttbar events that pass the selection cuts.

p 5 l 5: "well-measured" -> "known".

Done.

p 6 3-4: Since the fitting assumes "lepton+jets" events, it would be interesting to know the fractions of ttbar events in different W-decay modes.

See the following:

p 6 l 5-9: Were the pull distributions (or equivalent) similarly studied. That is, is there zero statistical error correction?

Yes, the pull-width distribution was studied and requires negligible corrections.

p 7 l 1: maybe "into account the varying instantaneous luminosity in the data".

Done.