List of comments on talk at TOP2013

ATLAS

General comments ========== General the talk is very nice and well structured, however the amount of material is probably too much for a 20 min talk.

Specific: === S3: = please add a third bullet on the left list: kinematical fitter

S4: = it might be useful to highlight the first row of red boxes is for Tevatron, the second for LHC

there is a extra space in the second bullet of the det specific (" nearby jet").

For the JES plot, it would be better to use the 2011 versions, given that most of the analyses are based on the 2011 datasets.

S5: = out-of-cone: please specify that this was for D0 Run I only.

S6: = please make sure to mention that the iJES contributions are of statistical nature.

second sub-bullet: what about rephrasing to something like: relative b-to-light jet energy scale factor from the quantity .... and then the formula

third sub-bullet: could be rephrased to something like; Reduction of the (b)JES related uncertainties at the cost of extra statistical contributions

S8: = very interesting central plot! Looking forward having more details once CMS-PAS-TOP-2013-007 will be released .

S9: = b-tagging systematic. e.g 3D fit exhibits a large sensitivity

jet reconstruction specific --> jet reconstruction

S11: == It might be helpful to specify which of the Tevatron measurements are from Run I or Run II (maybe using colors?) Please consider to add the references also for the Tevatron measurements

S12: == please consider substituting the reference to CERN-IT-NOTE-2013-003 to the arXiv:1307.4003v2

S13: == TOPLHCWG: harmonization between ATLAS in good progress, --> TOPLHCWG: second round of combination, harmonization between ATLAS and CMS in good progress

S14: == Just a suggestion, try to use bolder lines for the arrows, as it is different colors are difficult to distinguish

blue "in-situ" box --> "in-situ gamma/Z"

Expect robust --> Robust

double harmonization --> Add ttbar specific hadronization

S15: == Background modelling ---> Background modelling from MC

S16: == remove changes by a maximum of 80 MeV (this has been removed from the note draft) Also consider quoting the arxiv instead of the CERN-IT-Note

S20: ==

yes ATLAS has no standalone combination except that present in the LHC combination note. Values could be taken from there.

S21: = might be better placed in the conclusion outlook There is a dedicated talk on this, you can also refer to

Giorgio pointed me to the plot that was suggested to be replaced. You can find the one we would like to be included here:

CDF

D0

-Page 10: "Average uncertainties for CDF and D0 Run II and final combination". Not sure what means word final here, but for sure this is not the final Tevatron combination.

M. Mulders

I have mixed feelings about your title and the first slide; they are both very general and the public is left wondering what you are really going to talk about; perhaps a more specific title and a short outline on the first slide would be useful to explain the logic of the story you are going to tell...

Then, for the current first slide: not sure what exact message you want to give... the wording can be improved. I think you are differentiating between the "full kinematic reconstruction" vs "partial reconstruction" or "Lorentz invariant" vs "Not Lorentz invariant"... but then on the next slide you jump to a different topic, and the message of slide1 may be forgotten before you start talking about the alternative measurements. Maybe it is better to move this somewhere later in the talk?

It also seems that you are biased a bit more towards LHC (or even CMS); at least that is the impression from the number of plots. You can pre-empt this in your outline by mentioning already the Tevatron and LHC combination (with a NEW label) and explain that you will focus more on the new LHC combination.

Otherwise, there are places in the general discussion slides where you could replace LHC by Tevatron plots to improve the balance -- eg already on slide 1...

slide 11: blue box has one "only" too many

slide 12: perhaps nice to add a ref to the Valassi/Chierici note A. Valassi and R. Chierici, as some parts of it are now used in TOP-13-005 “Information and treatment of unknown correlations in the combination of measurements using the BLUE method”, arXiv:1307.4003

slide 21: here you risk some overlap with the "alternative methods" talks... you may want to refer to their talks for more detail or something like that. Also, in blue box the meaning of "both" is unclear from the slides