Back To Main Page



Abstract
line 1: ttbar events that have a large --> ttbar events with a large

Done.

line 2: drop "in their event signature"

Done.

line 3: ppbar collisions ... CDF II detector --> ppbar collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV collected by the CDF II detector at the Fermilab Tevatron.

Done.

line 5: that contain --> with it takes use --> uses I think in general that the description of the analysis in the abstract could be improved.

Modified.

line 8: Suggest: A likelihood fit of the templates to the data yields a top quark mass of Mtop ...

Done.


Page 2, line 1: ... is the heaviest elementary particle known. It has a mass ...

Done.

line 3: can be used --> serves

Done.

line 5: remove "the SM" ; Therefore, the combination of precision ...

Done.

line 7: the top-quark mass provideS an important constraint ...

Done.

line 9: In the SM, the top quark ...

Done.

line 10: yielding the ttbar -> WbWb signature, assuming unitarity ...

Done.

line 11: Since --> Because

Modified.

line 12: ttbar production is classified

Modified.

line 15: remove explicitly

Done

line 16: remove first comma

Done

line 17: from THE other CDF top-quark

Done

line 18: remove future

Done

line 19-20: I don't think it is useful to the reader to know how much the old analysis yielded. Until we get the current result to compare to, this is useless. I suggest you move it after you show the results.

Done

line 28: trigger is usually considered jargon --> online selection or simply event selection ?

Done.

Page 3, line 1: calorimeter response PARAMETERIZED (or ESTIMATED) as a function of ...

DOne

line 3-4: Suggestion: We identify jets consistent with originating from the decay of a b quark using a secondary vertex algorithm [17].

Done

line 5: b-tag is not used as such, I'd remove the parenthesis. Only b-tagging should remain.

Done

line 11-12: events with MET significance MET_sig = MET / sqrt( Sum ET).

Done

line 13: Suggestion: dPhiMET_MPT is the azimuthal angle between ...

Modified.

line 21-22: the reader will be curious as to what these variables bring more, or, alternatively, why these weren't used before. In other words, I think you should mention why you came to use them.

Modified.

line 23-25: Neural network is used redundantly, and there is a confusion regarding the "above selections" (once mentioned before the NN cut, once after, with the same wording). Suggestion: We apply the NN to all events passing the above selection criteria. We then define the signal region by requiring a NN output larger than XX.

line 27-29: You should tell the reader why it is OK to 1) extrapolate the b-tagging probability and 2) removing the ttbar component iteratively. At least mention why this is a valid approach, and provide references (if possible) or a statement that it was checked in similar conditions.

Added a setence of a reference here.

line 31: You may want to say why it is different to have a pair of b-jets vs. a single b-jet. This will be helpful for the general audience.

added the explaination where the separation of events was mentioned the first time.

Page 4, line 1: as shown --> shown

Done.

line 17: how is the lepton+jets channel relevant here. You don't reconstruct the whole event in the case of a semileptonic decay. You should clarify.

sentence modified.

Page 5, line 1: same as in Ref. [6]

Done

line 5: the W mass is supposedly known, not just well-measured

Done

line 19: Suggestion: those with five or six. We separate the candidate events accordingly.

Done

line 21: a previous analysis

Done

Page 6, line 7-8: needs typographical fixing.

line 9: I remember that the pulls used to be studied. You should add a comment here.

Done

Page 8, line 1: mention the old result here!

Done

FIGURES: "MET+ Xtag jets: 4 jets" is confusing. Please use "b-jets" or "b-tagged jets". Is it possible to have the same binning (X GeV/c2) ?

Figures discussed in blessing, so for now just leave them as they are.

TABLE 1: What is included in the uncertainties ? Please add this to the caption.

Done.