- line 563: for poorer statistics, and are applied…. data (no capital D) and Monte Carlo, …. -> can you show distributions and weights? Also, when you say you apply these weights to MC as well you mean the one used to make the subtraction?

- line 588: Title: should indicate also multijet background since you estimate together one fake and two fakes? Otherwise it can just be deduced from the text. I'd make it more explicit.

The matrix method covers all fakes, W+jets being the major contribution, in addition to dijets. The title is changed.

- line 605: etc? Do you really parameterize the efficiencies and fake rates in phi? And in more variables? Or just pT and eta? If the later, remove everything after eta.

- line 606: pass -> passes the two ...

- line 606: from W+jets and QCD multi-jet backgrounds which requires (but the whole sentence is difficult to understand)

- line 607: respectively, where

- line 608: pass the

- line 611: but for data (remove real), also, remove sentence "as we want …. background"

- line 612: we can know -> we can measure

- line 614: fake rates can be determined

- line 615: could -> can

- line 616: remove Eq. 9, is not needed…. just say: using Eq. 9 -> by inverting the matrix in Eq. 6

- line 617: W+jets and QCD multi-jet backgrounds ?

- line 619: Some (capital S)

- line 620: A negative weight …. probability, and our treatment

- line 622: using A matrix method … negative weightS

- line 623: for THE data-driven

- line 626: requiring A di-lepton . .. and BY requiring

- line 627: has -> have

- line 628: the filter requires -> requiring

- line 629: It -> The fitter, A Loose electron, comma after electron, exactly THE same

- line 630: as THE lepton cuts used for the nominal ZZ analysis. (period, not comma) also, requirement -> requirements

- line 631: remove "merely"

- line 632: ratio of THE number, pass -> passing, and THE number

- line 633: pass -> passing, of THE electron

- line 634: are shown in THE left, for electronS, for muonS

- line 635: fakes to -> faking a

- line 637: remove the before missing transverse energy

- line 638: from W decayS, (comma after decays), require THE transverse mass of THE lepton and THE missing … , should be -> to be

- line 639: there is still some

- line 640: Z+X events

- line 641: from THE jet-rich

- line 642: rate -> rates

- line 643: THE right

- line 644: for THE electron

- line 645: from THE two methods as A

- line 646: use ->uses

- line 647: and where we remove the

- line 648: a Z mass , The difference in the jet-> e

- line 649: 24%, and it is considered as A systematic uncertainty

- You describe the uncertainty for electrons, what about muons?

- lines 650-652: We propagate the systematic uncertainty on the jet fake rate to the W+jets background estimate by varying the fake rate by +/- 1\sigma, where \sigma is defined as the lepton pT bin-by-bin quadratic sum of the systematic uncertainty and the statistical uncertainty. Also, you don't consider the dependence in eta? Or you do for the nominal result but not for the systematics? And, does the method above apply to 2 fakes as well?

- Fake rates and efficiencies: usually have a strong dependence in eta, can you show these as well?

- line 653: Based on THE matrix

- line 654: in THE ee

- line 656: remove "which has been"

- line 657: remove text in parenthesis

- Table 24: in the text you say the estimated number of QCD and W+jets is listed, but the first column says only W+jets. Also, use "ee" and "\mu\mu" only, consistently with everywhere else. The e-channel estimation has only one error, while the mu-channel has two, why? And, how is it possible that fakes are larger for the muon channel than for the electron channel?? Caption: using THE matrix

- Figure 15, 16: y-axis of right figure should be labeled "Fake rate"? Captions: shows THE electron (muon), versus THE transverse momentum, determined using A Z control sample. Right plot shows THE jet (not capital J) to …. versus THE transverse momentum, determined using A jet-rich ….

Section 11

- Aren't the uncertainties on the muon momentum provided by the MCP group together with the momentum resolution? Why don't follow the recommendations here?

We follow the MCP recommendations. The uncertainties on the muon momentum scale corrections we apply on MC are still not provided by the perf. group.

The official recommendation is now to compare the selection with and without the scale correction applied.

- Table 25: Muon momentum scale unc. is symmetric, use just one error then. Missing separation line between muon mom. scale and isolation uncertainties.

The table has been fixed

Is it the recommendation to split uncertainties on scale and resolution?

yes

- line 673: package (period). This package is …

- Table 26: the total uncertainty is symmetric but not the individual components. If a rounding is done, say it in the caption.

- line 682: T&P (it has been defined before)

- line 686: from 2011 data or from the 2011 dataset

- line 692: package (period). This package is …

- line 698: the 2010 dataset (typo). Period after Ref. 34. In-situ …

- Table 27, 28: The uncertainties are indicated in %, do we need to show errors here?

- line 703: pile-up, cell-out and soft jets terms

- line 712, 713: The Czz correction has not been introduced at all yet.

- Eq. 10: describe the elements in the formula in the text

- line 718: satisfy THE

- line 719: period after requirements

- line 720: systematics -> systematic uncertainty

- Table 29: +0.39 for MET hadronic should be -0.39, mention in the caption in which cases the uncertainties are just the largest coming from tables 27 and 28? Again, Czz and Azz haven't been defined at all

Section 12

- line 728 says both statistical and systematical uncertainties are given but then in line 730 uncertainties are purely statistical?

- Table 30: Add a row for the totals? Caption - systematics -> systematic uncertainty, WW+top is WW+top+\tau\tau, right?

- line 731: Table 31?, remove "that were not … background"

- line 734: etc -> list everything, Fig. 17?

- line 736: Fig. 20?

- Table 31: WW+top is WW+top+\tau\tau, right?

- Figures, it would be nice to use consistent names for labels and captions, but at least use consistent names in the text (eg. M^Z, M_ll, p_T^Z, Pt(ll), Z p_T)

- Fig. 17: c, d -> missing space between "after" and "all". Caption: in all channels (remove the), from simulation, and the different background contributions. Wouldn't it be better to indicate the full uncertainty rather than the luminosity uncertainty only?

- Fig. 18, 19: c, missing space between "after" and "all". Caption: simulation. -> simulation, and the various background contributions ?

- Fig. 20: Would it be possible to use a coarser binning here? Caption: (left), and the muon channel (right). "and the background prediction from the data-driven estimate" is not exactly true right?

Section 13

- Use Czz or Czz->llvv consistently, same applies to Azz, \sigma_zz, etc

- line 767: remove "understood to be"

- line 770: will need to be calculated -> is

- line 771: separately, so it extrapolates

- line 777: remove "in this way"

- line 778: gives the (remove us)

- line 795: Here it seems the dressing it's only applied to electrons, while from the 4l paper it seems they apply it to muons as well. I tend to agree with applying it only to electrons only.

- line 800, 801: This sentence is awkward. The full space of truth? Maybe try: This is performed by applying a correction from the truth level fiducial volume to the full space at truth level ?

- lines 802-804: The reason … Czz->llvv is just a repetition of something already mentioned - remove.

- lines 806-807: rephrase to The values of Azz and Czz can be found in Table 32.

- Table 32: How do these uncertainties to those in table 29?

- line 808: shows -> show, of THE acceptance

- line 809: remove "samples".

- lines 812-816: The NLO sec was already increased by 6.3% to include the effect of the gg contribution, right? Or this 2.2% is just acceptance coming from kinematics?

- Table 33: Are these the same generators as used by the 4l analysis? In particular, I don't recall having seen they use gg2ZZ. If they are different, can you explain why? Caption: No commas before and after Azz ? Only THE statistical

- Table 34: No commas before and after Czz. Only THE statistical. The ZZ->llll. End sentence after HERWIG.

- Are uncertainties from tables 33 and 34 included in table 32?

- line 826: missing space between 106 and GeV

- line 839: three -> two ?

- Eq. 19: define each parameter in the text, please.

- line 846: no comma needed after luminosity

- line 848: remove \sigma =. Also, use same conventions for \sigma_fid and \sigma_tot as used in Eqs. 17 and 18

- Show likelihoods?

- line 853: without varying the systematic uncertainties. Also, table 36 is introduced twice, rephrase, please.

- table 36: Relative uncertainties of the cross section measurement due to different sources.

- line 862: 4.5\sigma -> wasn't 4.6 before?

- line 863: footnote not needed

- line 866: end sentence after CTEQ6.6

References

- Spurious comma in all references to webpages.

Appendices

- Aren't they referenced from anywhere in the note? They should.

- What do the bands indicate?

- Appendix B is to be finished?

- line 952: missing space between ETmiss and had

- line 953: Figure 26?

- line 954: what is ETmiss-Rel?

- Fig. 26: where does the applied cut lie in these curves?

-- MassimilianoBellomo - 15-Feb-2012