SUS-15-009: Search for natural supersymmetry in events with top quark pairs and photons in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV
CWR
Comments Set 1
request to change the ref. 40 electron reference to
@article{Khachatryan:2015hwa, author = "Khachatryan, Vardan and others", title =
"{)=8 TeV", collaboration = "CMS", journal = "JINST", volume = "10", pages =
"P06005", doi = "10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005", year = "2015", eprint = "1502.02701",
archivePrefix = "arXiv", primaryClass = "physics.ins-det", reportNumber = "CMS-EGM-13-001,
CERN-PH-EP-2015-004", SLACcitation = "%%CITATION = ARXIV:1502.02701;%%", }
Response: Done
Comments Set 2
General question:
- what similar previous studies do we have and how do these compare with the present
study? By how much do we improve in excluding the available phase space?
Response: Both CMS and ATLAS have published searches using photons for Gauge Mediation scenarios, however these have been interpreted with light first- and second-generation squarks and their impressive (>1.5 TeV) upper limits on squark masses are not comparable. For CMS see CMS-SUS-14-004 using Razor variables in 2012 and SUS-15-012 using MET in 2015 data. ATLAS has published results for single-photon searches requiring b-jets which would be closer in sensitivity — see ATLAS photon+b+MET in 7 TeV data and ATLAS photon + X in 8 TeV data — however the source of b-jets in their results is from Higgs or Z boson decays; they considered higgsino and neutral wino neutralino mixings, but still maintained squark production as first- and second-generation only. It would be possible for CMS and ATLAS to interpret these results in a light third-generation squark scenario, however without requiring b-jets (for CMS) or a second photon with their b-jet category (for ATLAS), the sensitivity to stop mass should be quite reduced. We recommend to analyzers already considering di-photon + jets + MET to consider an additional b-tagged category for an interesting extension.,,Outside of GMSB models, CMS and ATLAS have searched many times for direct stop pair production. Our stop mass reach is quite similar to those of the CMS public summary for T2tt in 2015 but falls short of CMS’ results in 2016. Our results exclude higher neutralino masses than these searches are able to, however they are very different models when comparing LSP to NLSP neutralinos. Lastly, outside of even SUSY searches, the cross-section for ttbar+gamma and especially ttbar+gamma+gamma would be sensitive to our signal. CMS at 8 TeV and ATLAS at 7 TeV show good agreement of the ttbar+gamma production rate with the NLO expectation. These have not been interpreted against our model’s additional production of ttbar+gamma. While somewhat similar results exist, we are not aware of any other searches for light third-generation squark production in a GMSB scenario, or of searches for di-photon + b-jet + lepton events.
- why do we use in this paper pt_Miss instead of ET_miss as a name of the variable?
It is quite unlike what we do in the vast majority of our other papers
Response: Suggestion by the English Editor
==> Also note that CMS now recommends use of p_T^miss
Details
- line 3 “sparticlesa” typo
Response: Corrected
- Ref 17: is this the best reference we have for this: a conference contribution
from 16 years ago? I guess it was not a very successful idea then…
This appears to be the foundational statement of the little hierarchy problem itself; there are many papers discussing it but in the context of a proposed solution.
- line 8: …largely unexplored? Are all stop searches that we do in CMS
not covering this parameters space already in the search for natural SUSY?
Then this sentence seems largely exaggerated! (and wrong).
Unless you mean something entirely different here that I did not
catch, like a specific has space region.
See the above answer for what similar studies exist; that was the motivation behind this statement.
However, we agree that it is too strong outside of the limited context of natural GMSB models
so we have reworded.
- line 18: “… with each one” each pair? Or what do you mean?
Response: Hopefully made clearer. text now reads,Furthermore, if only the top squark is sufficiently light to be produced at the LHC, SUSY
production would proceed through pairs of top squarks.. Assuming a bino-like neutralino
NLSP, each t squark would decay to a top quark and a neutralino, with the neutralino decaying
to a photon and gravitino resulting in a \ttbar+\Pgg\Pgg+\ptmiss event topology
- line 61: anti_kt: bravo, this is the correct notation. Don’t let anybody change it
Response: OK
- line 92: “isolation PT” This symbol is not defined before and we can just
write normal p_T as all for all else.
I guess we do not need it later any further either
Response: We now use p_T rather than PT
- line 118-119: confusing: are single top events done with Madgraph or POWHEG?
I would expect the latter. Please check the text.
Single top events are generated with POWHEG as lines 119-120 state.
- figures 1 is too small for submission to the arXiv (it is ok for the journal as they
will reset it themselves)
Response: Done
- line 187 what was done for the PDF uncertainty determination in this study? The
systematic error looks rather large.
Response: The range shown is simply the minimum to the maximum fluctuation of all PDF uncertainties across
all signal regions -- what was done is described in depth
in the AN (AN2014_272_v4), see especially Table 21. Three independent nuisance parameters were introduced,
one each for gluon-gluon, gluon-quark,
and quark-antiquark initiated backgrounds. For all backgrounds of each type, the PDF uncertainty was taken
from this twiki and
fluctuated as prescribed, yielding a fluctuation in the total background yield. So among PDF_gg, PDF_gq, and PDF_qq
across four signal regions, these range between 2.5 and 10%. Most of these are in the 3-5% range, however for example
ttbar+W is 13% and comprises a more significant portion of the background estimate in SR2 than in SR1, giving the largest
fluctuation of 10%.
- line 209 I guess this is just reflecting the ~ 1 sigma excess we observe in
table 3, right?
Response: Correct
- line 217: what exactly does it mean? With the same kind of analysis, i.e. looking
for the same signature? Or GMSB searches in general? Please be more specific.
By how much are the results improved in this analysis ?
Response: See the response above for what similar studies exist;
Comments Set 3
Type A: English/Style/Formatting (including figures)
Everywhere:
* t squark -> top squark.
* inconsistent notation for pT (70, 89, 92, 93, caption fig2)
* particle notation (Z, e) should not be in italics (note the indices of SF)
Response: t quark-> top quark done
Response: Inconsistent notation for pT: made consistent.
Response: Z, e italics corrected
Abstract:
Gauge mediated broken SUSY (one does not search SUSY breaking)
“that leads to lower limits on the mass of top squarks of up to 750 GeV.”:
- it is difficult to follow a lower limit that is up to
alternative: “that leads to exclusion of the top squark masses below 650 - 750 GeV”
Response: changed
l2: corresponds to a desirable -> is considered to be an attractive
Response: Changed
l4 “are so-called” > “are the“
l4 “sparticlesa” > “sparticles”
l12 "the missing transverse" -> missing transverse"
l13 "where photons in the final state..." -> that decays through neutralino->gamma,gravitino
leading to photons in the final state"
l15: strongly-interacting -> strongly interacting
l16 SUSY -> SUSY particles
l17-20 -> of top squarks. Assuming a bino-like ... gravitino leading to a
ttbar+gammagamma+ptmiss topology.
l21 focus -> concentrate
l21 where one of the resulting... remove rest of this sentence.
l22: Based on ..., the analysis requires... -> the first part of the sentence has no connection to
the second one... make two sentences.
l23 remove "being"
Response: Suggested changes implemented
l125 how can one observe a rate in a peak? -> choose better formulation
Response: We use the size of the Z boson peak
in the invariant mass distribution of electron-photon pairs in the
electron+jets channel to determine the misidentification rate.
l29 shower distribution -> shower shape (or requirements on the shower shape)
l31 one- and two-photon
l32 dependence
l32 ttbar + gammagamma
l35 SUSY -> SUSY model/framework.
l47 of ECAL -> of the ECAL
l51 constructed
l60 “PF particles” > “PF particle candidates”: we deal only with candidates
l61 Jet definitions use...
l68 “< 5 %” I would rather write “less than 5 %” - it gives more fluency
l70 to have a photon-like distribution -> to be photon-like distributed
l70 scalar sum of pT -> scalar sum of pT of all pF candidates
l78 “< 10 %” I would rather write “less than 10 %” - it gives more fluency
l80 and to avoid overlap of the electron and muon channels.
Response: Suggested changes addressed
l81 "the medium working point" is slang. Leave this sentence out.
l82 in that case write out CSV here
l85 the working point used for this algorithm, CSV medium (CSVM) is...
l85 “efficiency of tagging light or gluon jets”
➢ the efficiency of mistagging light or gluon jets as b-jets
Response: Agreed it is slang and should be removed. Propose to reword as:
Paragraph reworded.
l84,86 is about instead of \simeq
Response: changed to "about"
ANALYSIS
l.88: muon -> single-muon
l92 a looser criteria -> looser criteria
l92 isolation PT values -> isolation values
l94 and at least ... b quark. -> at least one jet must be tagged as a b-jet.
l.95: by at least a dR=0.5 -> by at least dR=0.5
l111: ttbar +jets -> ttbar+jets
Response: Suggested changes addressed
l111 This is no longer 'Analysis strategy': Background estimation would suit this part better
l113 lowest-order -> tree level (or otherwise leading order)
l117 “are rejected” > “are removed in order to avoid double counting“
l118 W or Z+jets -> W+jets or Z+jets (same for W+gamma)
l119 with next-to-leading order (NLO) -> with the next-lo-leading order (NLO) generator
l120 Z2: did you not use Z2* (with another reference)?
l123,124 I expect that W+gamma does not contribute significantly to misidentified electrons as photons as it only has one electron(or else only through a double fake)
l128,129 The first... -> First, a scale factor (SF) for the Z+jets... events is measured.
Response: Comments dealt with
l129 Zgamma+jets: does it mean Z+gamma+jets or Z(gamma)+jets or Drell-Yan + jets? Not so clear.
"Z+jets" refers to Drell-Yan with additional jets, and "Zgamma+jets" refers to the production
of both a Z and a photon with additional jets.
l147 Figure 1c: remove the contour around the 1c
l147 Figure 1: remove (a), (b), (c) from figures (or move to under the figures) for presentation
purposes
l147 Figure 1: egamma is subscript
l147 Figure 1: wordiness: 'in extracting'
l147 figure 1: there is a frame around the third plot
l147 figure 1: caption: first sentence sounds strange: "in extracting"
l147 figure 1: caption: e gamma wrongly written in subscript
l151,152 I would rather write: "The sources of two-photon events in SR2 are photon radiation
and jets misidentified as photons."
l161 the ... backgrounds are allowed.. -> the normalizations of the ... backgrounds are
allowed...
Response: Comments dealt with
l170 Figure 2: “showing (a) CR1 with one misidentified photon, and (b) CR2 with two
misidentified photons are shown. ”: there is no a)
nor b) on the figures, therefore -> “showing CR1 with one misidentified photon (left), and CR2
with two misidentified photons (right).”
l170 Figure 2: y-axis: do you mean <Events/GeV> divided by bin width? Perhaps you could also
explain this in the caption.
l170 figure 2: caption: showing ... are shown
l170 figure 2: caption: distribution -based -> distribution-based
l170 figure 2: caption: additional uncertainty.The -> additional uncertainty. The
Response: comments addressed
l177 bin-by-bin ratio ... distributions-> specify that this is in simulation (?)
l179 distributions
l181 “for only SR2” > “for SR2 only”
l191 muon ID, photon ID: define
l192 Table 2: “The dominant rate uncertainty from the “ > “The dominant rate uncertainty
originates from the ”
l192 Table 2: despite -> despite the fact that
l192 Table 2: check marks indicate that uncertainties affect the shapes of distributions
l192 table 2: line break ttbar+gamma Not clear what is referred to here.
l192 table 2: 2nd sentence ?? Not clear what is wanted
l192 table 2: line break between ttbar+gamma; Not clear what is whated
l192 “The dominant rate uncertainty from the “ > “The dominant rate uncertainty originates
from the ”
Response: Comments other than indicated were dealt with dealt with
l194 signal region shown -> signal region as shown
l194 Figure 3: perhaps clarify that there was division by bin width
l194 Figure 3: is it possible to use the same binning for signal and background?
l194 Figure 3: perhaps clarify the notation of GGM(460_175) and make notation conform
table3
l194 Figure 3: “Comparison of data and MC simulation in pmiss_T for the combined (e and mu)
signal regions: (a) SR1 with one reconstructed photon and (b) SR2 with two reconstructed photons.
”: there is no a) nor b) on the figures, therefore > “Comparison of pmiss_T distribution in
data and MC simulation for the combined (e and mu) signal regions: SR1 with one
reconstructed photon (left) and SR2 with two reconstructed photons (right).”
Response: comments addressed
l195 table 3: use m_{~t}
Response: English editor and Publication chair indicated how to refer to mass of top squark.
l195 Table 3: are there also counts per bin available?
Response: This was requested following the approval talk and they can be found
here.
l195 Table 3: a box around this table -> then put a box around table 2
l195 Table 3: 460_175 -> 460, 175
table 3: the first errors -> the first quoted uncertainties
Response: comments addressed
l196,197 what simulation tools have been used for event generation?
%B:UE%
The events are generated using Pythia 6, allowing the decay of SUSY particles to be handled by Pythia.
l198 m_{top squark} -> m_{\tilde{t}}
l202 decoupled to -> decoupled by setting them to
l202: are decoupled at very high masses -> are set to high masses in order to decouple (or
so...)
l205: limits sensitivity mass range -> limits the sensitivity of the mass range or limits the
sensitive mass range
l206 the 95% -> 95%
Response: Done
l210 Figure 4: it would be nice if the numbers in the figure(s) are also available online
Response: We could put the exact numbers within the figure in each bin with the "text" draw option,
but this seems messy for a paper. The SUSY group as a whole might be able to release information
like this, but only in huge chunks and very deliberately. Alternatively, we have submitted the data to HepData.
l210 figure 4: caption: upper limits on cross section -> upper limit of the cross section
l209 figure 4: caption: m_{top squark} -> m_{~t}
Response: See earlier remark about name for top squark
l209 figure 4: consistent labeling of axes/labels in the plot and caption/text: m_{t squark} ->m_{~t}
l210 Figure 5: there is a gap on the bottom of the band
l210 Figure 5: Legend: write limit +- 1sigma (?)
Response:Addressed comments
l210 Figure 5: limits on cross section -> limits on the cross section
Response: Changed Figure 4 rather than 5
210 Figure 5: Observed and expected means: what are means?
Response: Reworded the caption:
"Observed and expected exclusion contours at 95% CL in the top squark and bino mass plane."
l212 search for gauge-mediated broken SUSY
l214 Upper limits on the cross section
l214: cross section upper limits -> upper limits on the cross section
l215: bino masses, and top -> bino masses. Top (2 sentences)
l215 line break between number and unit
l216: most stringest -> most stringent
Response: Addressed comments
l222,225,243,246,268,271,275,321,332,335,338,341: page ranges -> first page (convention)
l223 13,452 -> 13, 452
l242,304,307,310,322 Collaboration collaboration (more often)
l254,268,271,273 letter belonging to journal name
l265/266 “2000. 2000.” > “2000,”
l300 \sqrt{s}
l305/306 “CERN, 2009, Geneva, Apr, 2009” > “2009”
l309 “CERN, 2010, 2010” > “2010”
l312 “CERN, Geneva, 2010” > “2010”
l323 “CERN, 2009. Geneva, Jul, 2009” > “2009”
l340 {MSSM} -> MSSM
l332,334 missing spaces after dots
l337 Comput.Phys.Commun. missing spaces and in contradiction with l340
l346 “eds. , CERN. CERN, Geneva, 2000. ” > “2000, ”
Response: References taken care of
Type B: Everything else (e.g. strategy, paper structure, emphasis, additions/subtractions, etc).
l8 is this not (to a certain extent) covered with other or direct stop searches as well? if not, then why?
This goes along with a previous comment; without the context being of results within natural GMSB models, this section is worded too strongly. Direct stop searches have been searched mightily but the GMSB phase space, with specifically bino-like neutralino mixings, is what is left largely unexplored.
l18: no - one stop decays to t gamma MET as explained in the following sentences.
Response: Not clear what is suggested here.
l35 references from 2009-2013: are there any new status/pheno papers (including dark matter,
allowed masses) for this model?
Response: Taking a brief look at new papers on arxiv, there are a few. For example there's https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08059 which is interesting but doesn't cover or care about GMSB photon searches. There's also https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08442 which I haven't read fully yet but seems on the cusp of relevance while falling short.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0228 is very interesting and does mention stops and binos in the context of modified GMSB, however does not explictly motivate photons.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.5758 has many suggestions for Run II searches, and several come tantalizingly close to relevant to our paper. But does not precisely name photons + b-jets.
Overall these are interesting but considering the references [26-31] are just to explain what GMSB is to the reader (the paper references them right at the first mention of GMSB), We don't think we should add any of these.
l143: has this been checked?
Response: Yes
l44 definition of barrel? Up to what eta? Is only mentioned later in 65
Response: def of barrel has been added
l50 equation of ptmiss?
Response: equation of ptmiss is given at this point.
l78 definition of this transition region?
Response: definition of transition region is inserted.
l109 "expected" -> found? Or if expected, then why?
Response: This is a good point; while we do "expect" it, we also do "find" that this is the case. We change "expect" to "found".
l109 “to be much smaller” please quantify the amount, or if it is negligible mention
“found to be negligible”
Response: added expected to be negligible
l110 ttbar + lepton + jets -> ttbar in lepton + jets (?)
Response: reworded to deal with comment.
l147 Table 1: 136 electron+jets channel (same as 127), not clear that this factor is used for
muons, perhaps mention in text
Response: Slightly rewording this section will better clarify that this scale factor is applied for both electrons and muons, as Table 1 explains. Proposed changes:
line 130: remove the "electron+jets" since it applies to both channels
line 134: change "for the Z(\gamma)+jets MC, to "for the Z(\gamma)+jets MC in each channel,"
l147 table 1: you should explain where the systematic uncertainties come from
Response: We reword the final sentence of the caption for Table 1 to something like:
"Uncertainties here are firstly from statistical uncertainties in the fit results,
followed by the variations in resulting scale factor due to fluctuating systematic uncertainties and added in quadrature."
l170 figure 2: caption: what do you mean with "distribution-based"? -> explanation
Response: This be better stated with "shape-based" --
what is meant is that this systematic is taken as a shape
uncertainty versus a MET-inclusive uncertainty. The English editor
did not favor shape-based.
l173: What do you mean with percentage? -> explanation
Response: Reword as "the difference in CR1 between data and background is taken
as a systematic uncertainty in the signal regions, applied bin-by-bin as a (1 - Data/Background) percent uncertainty.
l 174/175 what is CR2 used for? from the text is not used for the final results
Response: if was obtained to indicate what may be possible with higher statistics in the future
l175 "because of the statistical fluctuations" -> because of statistical fluctuations.
Response: done
l192 Table 2: jet energy resolution is missing?
Response: It is not missing; this should read "JES/JER".
Line 189 should also read instead "jet energy scale and resolution (JES/JER)."
Changes made
l192 Table 2: QCD scale and PDF could change the shape?
Response: Yes
l192 Table 2: Are PDF uncertainties included in the signal uncertainties?
Response: The signal systematics are calculated differently (see lines 196-197).
we would not label them as parton distribution function uncertainties. All of the
appropriate uncertainties are included in the "SUSY Cross Sections" figure of Table 2.
l194 figure 3: right: Is is correct that the last and next to last bin for the two signal models
have exactly the same expected yield? This seems surprising as both bins have a different size
and it is displayed in a log plot.
Response: The signal models shown have the correct values but your comment points out something missed by all other reviewers, and that the binning for the signal histograms is different in this one plot. It seems this is an oversight from a rebinning question in the ARC review -- the binning for signal model is now correct and this issue you've noticed is no more.
l196 why use a spectrum calculator? you set masses by hand later on? what determines the
coupling of the LSP to the photon+gravitino. Is this fixed in your scan?
Response: More precisely M1 and M3 are set by hand, and the use of a spectrum calculator results in very small corrections to M(~t1); the spectrum calculator is also what determines the coupling of the NLSP to photons, as the bino will have some decays to Z bosons. For the range of bino masses discussed this decay to Z bosons is fairly uniform at about 20%. Lastly, this is done because it is the method used for previous photonic GMSB searches as well as being approved by the SUSY MC group.
l198: use m_{~t}
Response: See responses about naming top squark
l198 why this range? is it not favorable for reinterpretation to extend this range? (reference?)
Response: As low-mass binos are extremely disfavored, the lower mass range for stops has to be above that region or else the bino ceases to be the NLSP. The upper mass range is quite a bit higher than what is commonly seen as "natural" for stop masses, and is chosen due to observed mass reach from statistics available and computational requirements of extending it much further.
l199 why 100% binolike? what is the phenomenological consequence of this?
Response: The 'simplicity' of this choice is in the phenomological consequence that the charginos can be set to very high masses and not participate, and removes the possibility of W bosons in the decays. While this choice isn't completely realistic in terms of model-building, the results of a 100% bino-like choice are similar to the SMS scans in simplifying the interpretation of our di-photon selection.
l201 “their small values“: what exactly is the range of the “small” values?
Response: reworded better as "Both masses are stepped in 25 GeV increments up to 300 GeV and in 50 GeV increments at higher masses."
l202 is the stop2 also set to a high mass? or do you consider mixed stops when you say stop?
Response: Stop2 is also set to a very high mass (5 TeV) and we do not consider mixed stops.
l208 where are the expected limits? These can be important for any reinterpretation (That is,
the colors in fig.4, not lines like in fig 5.)
Response: What is asked for is an additional plot like Figure 4, except for only the expected upper limits.
Figure 5 shows the exclusion contour that results from such a plot, but we didn't show it. We will conside
adding a another figure to the paper.
See my email for the materials. We could certainly add a second plot to Figure 4 as an a/b thing. Up to you.
l209 why are the observed lower?
Response: The limits are lower (we exclude less than expected) because we actually see a slight excess, however it's easily within the 1 sigma band. You can plainly see this in Table 3 with 30 events in SR2 where the background is 24.1 -- however as it's a shape comparison it gets complicated in how to compare it.
l209 Figure 4: no decay as in Figure 5? and/or:
l209 Figure 4: are the branching ratios of the decay included in the limits? if not 100%, is
there a table with (mass-dependent?) branching ratios?
l210 Figure 5: is this assuming 100% branching ratio?
l210 Figure 5: which side of the contour is excluded?
l210 figure 5: How do you derive a cross section from your model? more information needed?
l216: isn't there still a model dependence which needs to be quoted for these numbers?
Response: There no legend in Figure 4 like the one in Figure 5. We will make them match.
'are the branching ratios of the decay included in the limits?' --
The branching ratios of the bino to photons/Zs are included in the acceptance and the limits. The precise values versus bino mass can be found in Figure 2 of reference [28].
'is this assuming 100% branching ratio?' --
The branching of stops to tops is 100% due to the masses chosen in this model, while the branching ratio of bino to photon+gravitino is close to ~80% for most of these masses.
'which side of the contour is excluded?' --
The lower stop masses, below the diagonal "m_stop - m_bino < m_top".
'how do you derive a cross section from your model? more information needed?' --
Line 197 explains that NLO cross sections are calculated with PROSPINO.
'isn't there still a model dependence which needs to be quoted for these numbers?' --
Just before that, line 215, we say this is for binos,
l210 Figure 5: why is the label (top right) different from Figure 4 and Figure 3?
Response; Get Sasha to fix the labels.
l217 are there any acknowledgments?
Response: We will add the standard acknowledgements when finished.
*********************************************************************************************
Comments Set 4
Type A (English/Style/Formatting)
L4: Is “sparticlesa” a typo?
Response: corrected
L6: “Despite that…can avoid…” is correct but was a little hard to parse as a double-negative.
Perhaps: “Such regions of SUSY parameter space can avoid introducing a new little-hierarchy
problem, yet they have been left largely unexplored…”
Response: Changed to the suggested sentence
L7: You cite [17] in regards to the “little-hierarchy” problem, but that phrase does not appear in
that article. (You are in good company though--Wikipedia’s entry on the “little hierarchy
problem” does the same thing.) It appears the article is using an old name “The LEP Paradox”
for this concept. If the journal allows a sentence of explanation in the citation that would help.
Response: The paper [17] referenced is the canonical paper to link to for the the little hierarchy problem.
While this seminal paper does to refer to "little hierarchy", this is because the terminology has changed in
subsequent papers. This reference [17] is the reference that most other papers use.
L21: “The lepton + jets final state of the ttbar pair…” The reader might initially think this meant
both t’s decayed to lepton+jets, although you do clarify that later in the next sentence. It is
not wrong as it is, but could be made rock solid by changing this to “The lepton + 4 jets final
state of the ttbar pair”
Response: suggested change made
L31: “one and two-photons”. I leave it to you to decide if photon should be singular in this
case and if the “one” should have a hyphen after it.
Response: Already change based on Comments Set 3.
L32: “dependance”-->”dependence”
Response: done
L19 & L34: Consistent use of “t squark” vs. “top squark”. Check elsewhere.
Response: change to top squark
L43: “compliments”-->”complements”
Response: done
L50: You are probably not allowed to change this text about the detector, but there is not a
unique plane perpendicular to the beams (since they intersect at a small angle).
Response: Indeed but this may cause more confusion than it is worth to try to explain this complication.
L85: “The efficiency of tagging light or gluon jets…” It is not incorrect but perhaps the
inverse, “rejection factor” reads better.
Response: Change made
L92: Subscript T and lower case p.
Response: Done
L92: “a looser criteria” --> “looser criteria” or “a looser criterion”
Response: looser criteria was chosen
L108-110: This sentence was hard to understand. Since I don’t know what it is saying, I cannot
suggest an alternative.
Response: Addition of the word "uncertainties" to the last phrase of the sentence.
L129: “Zgamma”. Is that missing a / or a ( ) ?
Originally this was "Z(gamma)+jets" which was found to be confusing by others, so the notation -- where Z+jets and Z+gamma is used.
L129: “The first step is in…” Seems awkward. Delete “in”?
Response: sentence changed to make less awkward
L123: and rest of paragraph. It starts out talking about electrons that are identified as
photons, saying that for muons it is of course negligible. But later in the paragraph you do
have a scale factor for muon events from Z’s. Then the paragraph starting with L135 really
gets into the electron->photon mis-ID. If I am understanding correctly, it seems like this needs
to be organized such that the paragraph L123 is about the SF_(Z(gamma)) factor which applies
to both, and then paragraph L135 would be about the additional SF_(e->g) factor just for
electron events.
Response: We have attempted a rewording: The W+gamma and Z+gamma backgrounds are small in the muon+jets channel due t
o the negligible misidentification of muons as photons.
The misidentification of electrons as photons is considerable however, causing these processes to contribute to the signal regions at
low ptmiss. This misidentification is observable as the peak at the Z boson mass in the invariant mass distribution of electron-photon
pairs in the electron+jets channel of SR1. The measurement of this rate depends on the accurate estimation of the number of Z boson events
in the electron+jets channel. To improve this estimation, a scale factor (SF) is measured for the normalization of Z+jets and Zgamma+jets MC.
This is done for both the electron and muon channels. A dileptonic selection similar to the preselection is employed to measure this SF, requiring
exactly two leptons of the same flavor instead of one, and with no selected photons required. A fit to the invariant mass of the dilepton system in
data, using the Z(gamma)+jets MC as the signal template and all other MC backgrounds as the background template, gives a normalization for the Z(gamma)+jets
MC, labeled SF_Z(gamma), for both electron and muon channels.
Next paragraph is largely unchanged but remove the sentence: "This second scale factor is not applied in the muon-signal regions,
146 as the misidentification rate of muons as photons is negligible."
Figure 1: X-axes. Isn’t mass normally lower-case m? (eg in PDG and your figures 4 & 5).
Response: consultand change if necessary.
Figure 1: Since there is such good agreement, are these being shown after the scale factor is
applied? If not, then I am misunderstanding something.
Response: yes the figures are after the fits so the scale factor are applied.
L152: for parallel construction, remove “by”
Response: done
L164: You start the paragraph “With the above scale factors applied to each background…” But
this comes after you discussed some backgrounds whose scale comes from the fit. It is
potentially confusing. Do you mean to say “With the above scale factors or floating
normalizations applied to each…”
Response: We drop "With the above scale factors applied to each background," entirely so this reads: "The control region
offers a signal-free..."
Figure 2 caption: delete stray space in “distribution –based”. Also there is a missing space
after a period.
Response: done
Table 2: You say “all backgrounds” have QCD and PDF uncertainties. But weren’t some
normalized to the control regions (as you say in the caption as well)?
Response: The backgrounds do have QCD and PDF uncertainties. To find a systematic uncertainty on the normalizations, we fluctuate the distributions
for all the other systematics and re-fit for a new scale factor. For QCD/PDF uncertainties, they of course fluctuate the SFs up/down to suit
the data so the QCD/PDF systematics fall out of the SFs. In the limit-setting these effectively remove the QCD/PDF systematics from
these normalized samples as you'd expect (along with any other MET-inclusive systematic such as luminosity), but in the scope of a paper reporting
what the size of these uncertainties are, we decided to reporting their magnitudes.
Figure 3: It is hard to read the upper panes to see where the central value of the prediction is.
Is it the top of the colored bars or is there a 1 sigma range displayed as is often done using
shading. If the latter, then it is unclear why the data/MC for the last point in a is 1, but the
data point is below the top of the colored bar. If the former, then I can’t see the different
shading one would expect.
Response: One of the signal lines is maroon/purple and is close in color to the Diboson histogram color.
If you look real closely, the data is right in the center of 1 sigma shaded area and so close to the black histogram
central value line that it's nearly impossible to see -- thus why it's data/MC = 1.
We will change the color of the maroon signal line at least to clarify the plot.
Figure 3: The last data point in b seems to be 0.02 events/GeV. The bin-width is 150 GeV. So
that corresponds to 3 events. Let me know if that is wrong.
Response; The y-axis is difficult to distinguish but this is 2 events, 0.013/GeV. One event in electrons and
one in muons were observed. A more detailed, MET-binned table was requested in the ARC review
and can be seen in this twiki.
Figure 3: Upper right corners say (e/mu)+gamma+bjj but isn’t it (e/mu)+gamma+bjjj? Looking
back over the paper I could not find the number of jets required stated explicitly but maybe I
missed it. If you require 3 in addition to the b jet you should say it somewhere and give the
kinematical limits.
Response: The text now says that we are asking for three jets, one of physics is tagged as a b.
[37]The title of the article has k_t but you said k_T.
Response: fixed
Type B (Strategy…)
L117. You reject tt+jets events that have a generator-level photon. Presumably that is because
ttbar+photon are already generated and that would be double counting. The rate of rejection
is about 1/alpha so seems about right. Are you sure that all such events are all already
included in the ttbar+photon MC sample? If so, perhaps add “…to avoid double-counting” to
make it clear.
Response: change made
L172 paragraph: By using the actual bin-by-bin disagreements in CR1 to assign uncertainties,
do you risk over- or under-estimating the systematic error just by being lucky and unlucky. In
other words, if this paper were indicating an excess corresponding to a discovery, would this
method for assigning systematic uncertainty on the background be sufficient? And a question
in the other direction: does this procedure include statistical fluctuations that inflate your
systematic error too much and thus perhaps hide a discovery?
Response: This seemed to be a way to estimate uncertainties with some confidence. Indeed, there is
always the danger of overestimation of uncertainties but these procedures were evaluated by the ARC
and thought to be reasonable.
General: I did not see citations to prior work in the intro or in figures 4& 5. Perhaps this is the
first such search ever? You alluded to something like that. If so, perhaps good to make it
explicit that this is the first such search and no other prior exclusions are relevant. Although it
would be surprising if there were no prior relevant limits of any kind by now.
Response; We've done as deepest a dive on this that we can as given in the comments above. We can find 'similar' results that are not
completely compatible. We are always cautious about proving a negative for paper topics, there could always be some paper
missed, but we have yet to find a 3rd-generation GMSB search with photons, or even a diphoton+b search besides ours.
*******************************************************************************************
Comments Set 5
Type-A
L2: “corresponds to a desirable theoretical option” —> “provides a theoretical approach”
(“desirable” is imprecise; “corresponds” isn’t quite the right word)
Response: Sentence reworded
L3 : "recently-discovered Higgs boson mass" -> "recently discovered Higgs boson, with a mass
of "
Response: done
L4: remove "a" at the end of "sparticlesa"
Response: done
L5: for standard model -> of standard model
Response: done
L5: remove "kept". In this model, they are light
Response: done
L14: Move the decay to after the word "decay".
Response: sentence reworded
L18-20: The last sentence of the paragraph clarifies the final clause of the sentence before,
but this is not obvious from the structure. Consider reordering and/or rewording.
Response: final clause is reworded
L28: each event -> the event
Response: done
L29: , WHICH ARE referred to as ...
Response: done
L35: Move references to the end of the sentence
Response: done
L68: "divided by" -> "to the" (you already said it was a ratio)
Response: done
L68, L78, L84, L86: when < or \approx are used outside equations, please spell them out in
words (“less than”,”roughly”) rather than using the symbols.
Response: partially done
L105: intersect -> overlap
Response: done
L107: "a way to" -> "a sample with which to"
Response: reworded
L158: remove "in short"
Response: done
L164: "offer a signal-free" -> "allow the"
Response: done
L216: “most stringest” —> “most stringent”
Response: done
Type-B
L6-8 : Consider rewording. I suspect you mean to say that despite this is a nice region of
parameter space, it is largely uncovered but the text
doesn't read that way. It would also be nice yo include some results which do cover it since in
your conclusion, you claim these results are the most stringent.
At the very least modify "Despite that" —> "Although"
Response: Change to "Although" and reword sentence
L19: you use "t-squark" and "top quark" in the same sentence. Stick to "t" or "top".
Response: "top squark" based on advice from English editor and the pub. committee chair.
L22: This is an odd place to slip in the fact that the analysis uses 19.7/fb of 8 TeV data. This
should come earlier and be a sentence in its own right.
Response: moved the reference to the data earlier and reworded.
L29, L101, L103: “Misidentified photons” - consider replacing this terminology with a clearer
wording. The term is defined, but it’s misleading because this wording would usually mean
“photons misidentified as something” rather
than (as is the case here) “something misidentified as photons”. This term only seems to be
used a few times, so perhaps you can just spell it out specifically as “reconstructed photons
with selection partially inverted” or similar.
One instance where this terminoligy causes confusion is in L100-102 where the text defines
"mis-identified" photons as failing either the shower energy distribution or hadron isolation.
However, in lines 68-69 an object is said
to have to have a photon-like energy distribution in order to be identified as a photon in the
first place. You could be clearer how these objects are defined,
are these objects that fail the shower energy distribution requirment but pass all the other
requirments outlined in 65-69?
Response: Wehave changed places where misidentified photon was used to fake photon. We left case where the misidentified
was used properly (such misidentified electron to photon rate or misidentified jets as photons.
L48-50: This should be moved to the next section, why describe this here?
Rseponse: We see no reason that this definition of ptmiss is better positioned in the reconstruction section than in the detector section.
L59: No need to list photons, electrons....
Response: removed photons and electrons.
L61: "in FastJet" -> "as in the FastJet toolkit"
Response: done
L61-62: It is incorrect to say that anti-kT jets are clustered in eta-phi. anti-kT uses rapidity (y)
instead of eta. Avoid defining DeltaR here because the isolation cones in subsequent
paragraphs probably do use dEta instead of dy.
Response:Reword line 60:
"Jets are reconstructed by clustering PF particles using the anti-kt algorithm in FastJet using a distance parameter of 0.5, and their momenta are corrected..."
and then move the definition of deltaR to line 70:
"the scalar sum of pt within a cone of DeltaR = 0.3 (where DeltaR = sqrt(...)) ..."
L61: What does "use a distance parameter" mean?. Should say "Jets are reconstructed using a
distance parameter of 0.5 "
Response: changed
L67: "supercluster" seems like CMS jargon, consider something else especially since its only
used here.
Response: changed to ECAL photon cluster
L69-70 What is the cut on the isolation variable for photons? Please specify (as is done for
muons and electrons later).
Response; Reword line 69 to
"The photon isolation energies for neutral hadrons, charged hadrons, and other photons are calculated as the scalar sum of the pt of each type of PF candidate
within a cone DeltaR = 0.3, where DeltaR = sqrt(...). The charged hadron isolation energy is required to be less than 15 GeV, the neutral hadron energy less than 3.5 GeV
plus 4\% of the photon candidate's pt, and other photon isolation energy less than 1.3 GeV plus 0.5\% of the photon candidate's pt. Pileup corrections are..."
L74: here and L78, the objects dont "have an isolation". You should first define the isolation
quantity and then say what the requirement on
that quantity is for the electrons and muons.
Response: We have addressed this previously by rearrangement of the isolation remarks..
L79: Is this really momentum or pT?
Should be pt, ss we so desginate it as p_t
L79-80 The last sentence in this paragraph is not clear if the reader doesn’t already know what
is intended. Suggest: “Looser lepton requirements are used to identify extra leptons, which are
vetoed as described in Section 4.”
Response: reworded
L81-86 The medium working point (“CSVM”) is not defined in reference 41. Please either
provide a reference that includes this working point, or remove the “medium”/“CSVM”
terminology. It adds nothing without context, and you could simply say “The efficiency of the
selection is…” without describing it as “medium”
Response: deleted the reference to CSVM and reworded the paragraph.
L97: Why refer to these as "candidate" photons?
Response: at this point we have only done a preselection. Therefore the photons are still candidates (Is this correct Brian?)
L99: In general its not clear whether this should be 2 or 2 or more photons in the signal region
defition. In the control region, you use >=2, why not in the SR?
Response: Reword line 99 to say "SR2 two or more photon candidates.""
L103 “true candidate photons” sounds like it has something to do with MC truth, but I think
you are referring to reconstructed photons passing the full selection. Please reword.
Response: reworded
L105 “very low signal acceptance” Can you quantify? The number appears later (it seems) when
talking about the "signal-free" control regions but its out of context there.
Response: yes, we can quantify. The number appears later in the text. Th introduction of the
remark about low signal content is pertinent to the general definiton of the CR1 and CR2 so we
think it is necessary for the context here.
L108-110 I do not understand this sentence. You compare the effect of poorly-reconstructed
objects on pTmiss resolution to the effect of background events. Are you talking about the
effect on the distributions rather than the effect on the resolutions? Please rethink and rewrite
this sentence.
Response the effect on the resolutions. We have rewritten the sentence:
L116 “generator-level photon” —> Does this only include photons in the matrix element, or are
photons from hadronization (i.e. pi0 decay) also included? If so, under what circumstances?
Response:
L117: you should
explicitly state that you reject the overlap from the tt+jets to avoid double
counting.
Reponse: This has been done
L118-120 It would be useful to specify the number of extra partons allowed in the matrix
element for each of these MadGraph samples
Response: We used just the standard samples from 2012. We have no way to recover the number of extra partons in these MadGraph samples.
I don't know how appropriate or important it is to put something like this in a paper, and I wonder if this commenter just meant "it would be interesting".
L129 and beyond: the notation for Z+jets and Z+gamma events keeps changing, and it is
therefore hard to follow which samples are used for different steps in the SF calculation.
Specifically you have Z\gamma+jets for the first time on L129, then Z(\gamma)+jets for the
first time on L133, and then in the Figure 2 captions you say Z/\gamma*+jets for the first time.
Please use consistent notation everywhere for each sample, and if any terms are combinations
of other samples then please define them.
Response: We believe that we have made the notation all consistent.
L129: when you first say you will compute a SF, later called SFZ(\gamma), you do not define
what this SF is the ratio between. This is a data-driven Data-to-MC ratio, right? Say this and
also specify which sample. An equation might be useful.
Response; We feel lines 128-134 are precisely dedicated to defining this There's no formula, it's just a template fit.
You have two background distributions and the data, and the fit variable is the normalizations
of each.
.
L139: you use "signal" with two different meanings here which is confusing. For the fit, there is
not reason to call one signal and one background. Just say you fit for
the Z(gamma)+jets contribution.
Response: Reworded
L148: "A final concern" sounds improper. Maybe just say "The final controbution to the
background is due to ..."
Response: Reworded
L165: what yields the product of acceptance and efficiency? remove this part of the sentence
or reword
Reword ", yielding..." as: ", with a signal contamination of less than 1%."
L170: I wouldn't say this agreement is good. Do you have a number for this?
Response: See the goodness of fit numbers in the responses to statistics committee.
L173 “the bin-by-bin difference in CR1” … the difference between what and what? The
number of events in Data and the sum of MC? An equation might also be useful here.
Response: Between the data and MC background Have so indicated in the text.
L174: I worry here that some systematic is missing in CR2 since there is a clear trend in the
data/MC. How do the shape systematics compare in this region (eg JES?). Do they
cover this disagreement, i.e are they included in the systematic error band? If not you should
state it and include such a systematic in the plots.
Response: The red shaded error bars in Figure 2b do indeed include all systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties from the limited MC sample sizes in CR2. The counting
errors on the observed data are also very significant when compared to this difference, so if there is some systematic mis-modelling of the MET distribution in CR2 causing
the trend it would not be truly observable without more data; even a single additional data event in the largest MET bin would alter this trend. We explicitly make this comment in the text,
that we cannot distinguish between systematic mis-modelling of MET in CR2 from statistical fluctuations.
L175 How exactly are the CR1 results “used” for SR1 and SR2? Is that what the next sentence
(“Additional…”) is specifying? If so this is not clear from the language.
Response; Lines 172-174 should specify how CR1 is used.. A rewording for a previous comment was:
"the difference in CR1 between data and background is taken as a systematic uncertainty in the signal regions,
applied bin-by-bin as a (1 - Data/Background) percent uncertainty.
L189-191. As the estimated uncertainties on the scale factors are not mentioned elsewhere,
this sentence needs to be reworded to something like: “Estimated uncertainties on trigger and
object selections are propogated to systematic uncertainties on the analysis by… ; these
include b-tagging, electron and muon ID and triggers, and photon ID.”
Response: Reworded
L200-201: This sentence is very clumsy. You can say "Signal points are evaluated in 25 GeV
steps in both m_bino and m_t-squark for values smaller than X and in 50 GeV steps
otherwise" and please state at what point (X) the switch from 25 GeV to 50 GeV increments
happens.
Response: To a previous comment reworded to "Both masses are stepped in 25 GeV increments up to 300 GeV and in 50 GeV increments at higher masses."
L206: You can see an excess and still set limits. Make this into two sentences. 1) No excess is
observed. 2) limits are placed....
Response: Done
L216-217: As before, a comparison to other results should be mentioned in the text to make
such a statement unless this is the "first" in which case it is by definition the best.
Response: See above responses to other comments. Several somewhat similar literature searches were done but nothing precisely for diphoton+b or stops in GMSB if you consider GMSB stops too different from non-GMSB stops.
Figures and Tables:
Figure 2 and 3: For “stat + syst uncertainties” in the caption, is the “stat uncertainty” the
uncertainty on the MC? Please specify.
BRAD: It is the stastical uncertainty from finite MC sample sizes.
Figure 4/5: use the same notation as in the text (t-squark, with a hyphen!)
Response: Dealt with
Table 1 caption: "The first scale factor is applied only in the muon+jets channel" sounds like
you don't apply it in the electron channel. You should say "Only the first
scale factor is applued in the muon+jets channel"
Response: done
Table 1 caption: The captions says that both the scale factors are applied to the W+gamma
background but I can't find anywhere in the main body of text where it says the SFZ scale
factor is to be applied to the W+gamma sample. In line 129 this is said to be used to correct
the Z+jets and Zgamma+jets normalizations but no mention of the W.
Response: We remove the Wgamma+jet inclusion from line 123 and Table 1's caption. Considering how a a Wgamma --> e+gamma+MET jet
would look if it had a mis-ID'd electron as a photon. You'd would have two photons but no lepton, so you don't
ever get these.
Table 2 caption: This makes two statements about dominant uncertainties that seem to
contradict each other. For the “dominant rate uncertainty” what do you mean by “despite that .
. . are allowed to float freely . . .”. Do you mean that this uncertainty does not dominate
because of the fit? Please rethink and reword. Likewise, for the last sentence the word
“reflect” is ambiguous. Can you not say “The dominant uncertainties are …” in a more
straightforward way?
Response: Reword the caption along the lines of: "Summary of systematic uncertainties, where check marks indicate shape uncertainties
binned in ptmiss. The dominant uncertainties are those derived from control region. In the calculation of upper limits, the normalizations of tt+jets and tt+gamma backgrounds are additionally allowed to float freely."
Table 2 caption: Can you explain the check marks better? Are you saying that these items are
shape uncertainties, or that they have both a shape and a normalization component? Please
reword.
Response: see above rewording of this caption. No check mark means it's inclusive of MET, and check mark means it's a shape uncertainty.
Table 2: What are these uncertainty percentages on? The quantities in question, or the
normalization of the pTmiss plots, or the limits? It’s not clear. The notes column is also not
easy to understand for the control regions; better to simply explain these points in the text,
and have the “Notes” column specify only which distributions are affected.
Response: They are percentages of the quantities in question, ie what's in the notes column.
To respond to their suggestion, we change Table 2's "Notes" to "Processes affected", and change the notes indication to just say "All backgrounds" for the control region notes.
**************************************************************************************
Comments Set 6
abstract and elsewhere - isn't it "stop squarks" rather than "top squarks"?
Response: Suggested name is top squark
line 4 - (sparticles)
Response: Corrected
line 23, 24 - not obvious how the requirement of exactly one isolated lepton would minimize
contributions from multijet and gamma+jet backgrounds
Response: High quality leptons area rarity in QCD multijet events or gamma+jet events. Requring an isolated lepton is a sure-fire way to remove QCD.
line 28 - maybe "a nominal isolation" better than "the nominal isolation" since this has not
been described yet
Response: changed
line 45 - "remaining barrel photons"? - early-converting photons?
Response: added converted adjective
line 82 - "CSV" not defined
Response: A reference has been added
line 92 - PT should be p
Response: Done
line 117 - "are rejected" - from the simulation? from the sample? as signal?
Response: from the simulation of the ttbar +gamma sample
Table 1 description - "Only the first scale factor is applied for the..." rather than "The first
scale factor is applied only in the..."
Response: done
line 159,160 - remove either "as such" or "therefore"
Response done:
line 178-182 - why should CR1 be the same as SR1 (unless you have already assumed
beforehand that there should be no signal)?
Response: This is largely the expectation from the study of signal level in the backgrounds.
The signal level is quite small in the signal MC after SR1 cuts compared to the background level after
Table 2 description - Vgamma not defined
Response: Vgamma is no longer used.
- "The dominant rate..." - not clear; in fact, not grammatically a sentence
- "The dominant uncertainties..." - not clear. Is this reflected in the table
content?
Response: previous commenter wanted this re-written and we did, fixing the grammar.
Figures 4 and 5 - i suggest the labels on the top right hand corner ("19.7 fb...") should be
similar
Response: We agree and will fix.
- m not defined
Response: replaced by m top squark
line 214 - "Cross-section..."
Response: corrected
reference [26] is a repeat of [21]
reference [27] is a repeat of [22]
Response: corrected
*******************************************************************************************
Comments Set 7
L4 spartoclesa ==> sparticles
Response: done
L32 dependance -> dependence
Response: done
L35 general gauge-mediated [26–31] (GGM) SUSY ==> general gauge-mediated (GGM) SUSY
(26-31] or general gauge-mediated (GGM) [26-31] SUSY.
Response: done
L49: reconstucted -> reconstructed
Response: done
L51 contructed -> constructed
Response: done
L63 particle flow ==> PF
Response: done
L92 PT ==> p_T
Response: done
Fig.1
(c) : Remove a canvas boundary box
Response: done
caption: …in e\gamma for …==> not clear!, is it ‘.. In M(e,\gamma) for ..’ ?
Response: it refers to M(e, gamma), changed
L131: Additional third leptons are still vetoed -> Additional third lepton is still vetoed
Response: changes
L155 ttbar \gamma ==> tuba +\gamma
Response: changed
Fig.2 caption: distribution -based ==> distribution-based
Response: changed
L179 distribtuions -> distributions
Response: done
L191 ID ==> do you need to defend this somewhere? Please double check this with pubcom.
Response: We reference the lepton ID performance papers from CMS.
Table.2 (and Table 3)
Caption: V\gamma ==> V has not been defined.
Response: VGamma is not used now used in the text.
L198, Table.3,
Response: I do not find the typo that this comment refers to.
L204, Fig.4(caption)
m_top squark == m_t spark (for consistency; see the x-axis label & legends on Fig 4 and 5)
Response: Suggested name is m_{top squark}.
Table.3
(460_175) ==> (460,175)
Response: done
L199 NLSP has been already defined in L10
Response: deleted NLSP redefinition
L216 stringest -> stringent
Response: done
====================
Comments on references:
[1] four-dimensions ==> four dimensions
Response: done
[2] Extension of the Algebra of Poincare Group Generators and Violation of p Invariance ==>
Extension of the algebra of poincare group generators and violation of p invariance (use
non-capital letters due to CMS guidelines)
323–326 ==> 323 Also, doi is missing
Response: Title corrected. There seems to be no doi assigned.
[3] 438–440 ==> 438
Response: done
[8] L. J. Hall, J. D. Lykken, ==> L. Hall, J. Lykken,
Response: done
[10] Collaboration Collaboration ==> Collaboration
30–61 ==> 30
Response: done
[11] 1–29 ==> 1
Response: done
[12] (2015) no. 5, 212, ==> (2015) 212,
Response: done
[13] pp ==> \it pp
C76 (2016), no. 1, 6, ==> C 76 (2016) 6, (note: also ’C’ shouldn’t be bold; need a space between
C and 76)
Response: done
[14] ATLAS, CMS Collaboration ==> ATLAS Collaboration and CMS Collaboration
Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in pp Collisions at … Experiments ==>
Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at … experiments (use
non-capital letters due to CMS guidelines)
Response: done
[15] NLSP ==> Next-to-Lightest Supersymmetric Particle
Response: done
[16] The Status of GMSB After 1/fb at the LHC ==> The status of GMSB after 1/fb at the LHC
Response: done
[17] 2000. 2000. ==> 2000, (2000).
Response: done
[18] A Phenomenological Model of Particle Physics Based on Supersymmetry ==> A
phenomenological model of particle physics based on supersymmetry
B110 ==> B 110 (note: ‘B’ shouldn’t be bold; a space between B and 110)
Response: done
[19] Supersymmetric Extension of the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) Model ==> Supersymmetric extension of
the SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) model
B113 (1982) 175–179, ==> B 113 (1982) 175, (note: also ‘B’ shouldn’t be bold; a space
between B and 113)
Response: done
[20] L. Alvarez-Gaume ==> L. Alvarez-Gaumé
Response: : We will correct \'{e} --
Low-Energy Supersymmetry ==> Low-energy supersymmetry
B207 ==> B 207 (note: ‘also B’ shouldn’t be bold; a space between B and 207)
Response: done
[21] General Gauge Mediation ==> General gauge mediation
143–158 ==> 143
Response: done
[22] Exploring General Gauge Mediation ==> Exploring general gauge mediation
Response: done
[23] Phenomenology of Pure General Gauge Mediation ==> Phenomenology of pure general gauge
mediation
Response: done
[24] R ==> \it R
Response: done
[26] This reference has been used already in ref [21]. Please remove [26].
Response: done
[27] This reference has been used already in ref [22]. Please remove [27].
Response: done
[29] This reference has been used already in ref [16]. Please remove [29].
Response: done
[32] Performance of Photon Reconstruction and Identification with the CMS Detector in Proton-
Proton Collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV ==> Performance of photon reconstruction and
identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 TeV
remove ‘no. 08’
Response: done
[34] Collaboration Collaboration ==> Collaboration
Particle-Flow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets, Taus, and MET ==>
Particle-flow event reconstruction in CMS and performance for jets, taus, and E_T^{miss}
Technical Report CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001, CERN, 2009. Geneva, Apr, 2009. ==> CMS Physics
Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001, 2009.
Response: done
[35] Collaboration Collaboration ==> Collaboration
Commissioning of the Particle-flow Event Reconstruction with the first LHC collisions recorded
in the CMS detector ==> Commissioning of the particle-flow event reconstruction with the first
LHC collisions recorded in the CMS detector
Technical Report CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001, CERN, 2010, 2010. ==> CMS Physics Analysis Summary
CMS-PAS-PFT-10-001, 2010
Response: done
[36] Collaboration Collaboration ==> Collaboration
Commissioning of the Particle-Flow reconstruction in Minimum-Bias and Jet Events from pp
Collisions at 7 TeV ==> Commissioning of the particle-flow reconstruction in minimum-bias
and jet events from pp collisions at 7 TeV
Technical Report CMS-PAS-PFT-10-002, CERN, Geneva, 2010. ==> CMS Physics Analysis
Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-10-002, 2010
Response: done
[40] It seem that this reference is out of dated. Please replace this reference by the most recent
one (JINST publication)
Response; We have updated ref 40.
Brad: try https://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+eprint+1502.02701
[41] Collaboration Collaboration ==> Collaboration
b Jet ==> b jet
Technical Report CMS-PAS-BTV-09-001, CERN, 2009. Geneva, Jul, 2009. ==> CMS Physics
Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-BTV-09-001, 2009
Response: done
[44]
0711 ==> 11
Response: done
was
[45]
Was == > Z. Wa̧ s
tau lepton decay ==> τ lepton decay
KKMC / KORALB / KORALZ /... status report ==> KKMC/KORALB/KORALZ /... status report
Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 98 (2001) 96–102, ==> Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 98 (2001) 96,
Response: Correction to Was and tau made
[46]
Min-Bias and the Underlying Event at the LHC ==> Min-bias and the underlying event at the
LHC
Acta Phys.Polon. B 42 (2011) 2631–2656, ==> ACTA Phys. Polon. B 42 (2011) 2631,
Response: done
[47]
Comput.Phys.Commun. 176 (2007) 426–455, ==> Comput. Phys. Commun. 176 (2007) 426,
Response: done
[48] Please check dos link; it’s broken. It should be 10.1016/j.cpc.2005.01.012
(hyper link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010465505000822)
the {MSSM} ==> the MSSM
Computer Physics Communications 168 (2005), no. 1, 46 – 70, ==> Comput. Phys. Commun.
168 (2005) 46,
Response: done
[48] a Fortran ==> A Fortran
Response: done
[49]Hopker ==> Ho ̈ pker
Response: done
[50] Please check a format you used for this reference with Pubcom.
Response: This reference has been removed and replace with
other references so this comment is now moot.
**************************************************************************
Comments Set 8
Duplicate of Set 7
***************************************************************************
Comments Set 9
first, not related to statistics, there are a number of typos in the draft. I have not
carefully looked for them, but for instance: sparticlesa (l4), "distribution-based"
(additional space) and "uncertainty. The" (missing space) in the caption of Fig. 2, ...
Response: These issues are addressed in responses in other comments sets
Fig.1: what is "Bkg" in the legend? It would deserve a proper definition in the caption.
Please fix the style of the plots, e.g. why is there a border around the third panel?
Why are systematic uncertainties not included in the ratio of the data to the
expectation in the bottom panel, contrary to other similar plots in the paper?
Why is the x-axis starting at a different place for the three panels?
Why is there a bin with some observed data and zero expectation in the first
panel?
Response: We have defined "Bkg" from the legend as "other dilepton and egamma backgrounds" in the Fig. caption.
We have added systematics to this plot and fixed the x-axis and other problems.
The data / expectation agreement looks very bad. Have you performed a
goodness-of-fit (GOF) test? You should run one and mention it in the text.
Response: When the systematic errors are included the GOF tests are acceptable. We have now included these in the plots.
If we include all the uncertainties than these three Fig. 1 plots each show a KS-test of over 0.96.
Response continued:
To be more specific
Figure 1a) GOF:
Chi2/NDOF with systematics 5.38
Kolmogorov-Smirnov with systematics 0.96
Figure 1b) GOF:
Chi2/NDOF with systematics 6.38)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov with systematics 0.99)
Figure 1c) GOF:
Chi2/NDOF with systematics 0.17)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov with systematics 1.0)
l.170: you claim that the data-expectation agreement in the CR2 is "good" (and "poor" in
the caption of Fig. 2...). Please quantify with a GOF test. The corresponding statement in
the caption of Fig. 2 is really too hand-waving at the moment...
Caption of Fig. 2: does the uncertainty (by the way, be more precise about how and
where this uncertainty is shown in the plots) include the "CR1 disagreement"? Also, does
this uncertainty only include the uncertainties related to the ptmiss modeling, or also
those related to ID, pileup, trigger, etc. ?
Response: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test between the data and MC in CR1 gives 0.828185
and in CR2 gives 0.657578 which is acceptable. .
Response: The systematics included in Figure 2 are everything listed Table 2 except for the
"CR1 disagreement" and "SR1/CR1" and "SR2/SR1". So the "CR1 disagreement" isn't included,
but ID/pileup/trigger systematics are included.
l.172: "the performance of the ptmiss modeling"
Response: changed
l.178-182: not clear what is referred to here. What are the CR1-SR1 and SR1-SR2
differences mentioned? Differences between which quantities?
Response; We have reworded lines 172-174 as:
"the difference in CR1 between data and background is taken as a systematic uncertainty in the signal regions, applied bin-by-bin as a (1 - Data/Background) percent uncertainty.
For lines 178-182, the same exact calculation is done comparing CR1 to SR1 and comparing SR1 to SR2.
l.185: why are systematic uncertainties affecting the ptmiss modeling assumed to be
completely correlated?
Response: This was a typo. They are uncorrelated. corrected.
Fig. 3: you have a few bins with a low event count. If not the case already, please use
error bars with a correct coverage for Poisson data (see https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki
/bin/view/CMS/PoissonErrorBars).
Response; We will add the Poisson errors.
l.208: this section needs to be expanded. First, please refer to the "CLs criterion", not
"method", and prefer citing A. Read and T. Junk's papers (see