Back To Main Page


Page 2, line 5-8. Sugegstion: ... and the W boson mass ($M_W$) to the predicted mass ... Therefore, the combination of precision measurements of $M_W$ and $M_{\rm top}$ provides ...


line 13-15: remove at least one of the 'veto'. Suggestion for the second: this ensures our result is statistically ...


line 18-19: increase the size of the event sample.


line 25: why 'initially passed' and not just 'pass' ?


Page 3, line 14: "in order to include more ttbar signal events while keeping good control of background processes." --> The reader might want more information, e.g., the percentage increase in signal and decrease in background acceptances.

Delta_phi_min used in this analysis reject 46% background while retain 88% signal, Delta_phi used in the previous analysis rejects 80% background while retain 50% signal.

line 19-20: the reader might wonder what is the improvement of this new NN over that of the past iteration. If this is available, could you quantify the percentage increase in signal and decrease in background acceptances when using the new NN over the old one (with the same dataset) ?

We do not have direct quote of that quantity right now, but this can be put on the list if necessary.

line 25: is 'takes use' proper English ?


Page 4, TABLE I: add space between "jets." and "Events" on the line before the last. "is estimated with a cross-section" --> is estimated assuming a cross-section


line 12: leading --> most energetic ? Also: you mention mjj as the "first variable", but the others two variables are not explicitly presented (nor in page 5).


Page 5, line 2: [6] --> Ref. [6]


line 4: space before (UE)


line 20: "Studies based on MC": the reader might be interested in more information, or a plot.

We defined a way by ourselves to calculate the sensitivity, which can be provided upon request.

line 24: the kernel density estimation --> a kernel density estimation (since "employs a non-parametric method to construct p.d.f.s" doesn't make it unique), or be more specific about the method used.


Page 8, line 2. The reader might wonder why use 173.5 while you measure something closer to 174. Either mention why you pick 173.5 (closer to world average) or overlay M_top = 174 GeV instead.

OK, this is more of a historical reason: methodolegy was changed during the measurement once, which gave a Mtop closer to 173.5, so we used 173.5 of MC since.