Andrey Loginov's comments to the first draft of ggMET paper:
-----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Authors,

  The draft is very well written and is already in a very good shape -
I have few minor comments/suggestions, please see below.

Best Regards,
                    andrye

-----------------------------------------------------------
General comments:
-----------------------------------------------------------

Please check the order of references, some of them seem to be
misplaced.

==> Done.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Title: 
-----------------------------------------------------------

you have "CDF II" in the title - suggest to mention 1.96 /
ppbar collisions instead (or in addition?).

==> The last three papers (two delayed photon analyses and ggmet with 202/pb) just
said CDF since the title is too long.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:
-----------------------------------------------------------

suggestions:

- photon -> photon ($\gamma$)

==> Done.

- Collider Detector at Fermilab -> CDF

==> Done as  the CDF II detector, following delayed photon PRD.

- no need to define of gravitino (don't use the symbol it in the
  abstract) but you do use neutralino symbol - define it

==> Done.

- define $\tau_{\NONE}$ (lifetime of the neutralino)

==> Done.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Text:
-----------------------------------------------------------

p1

8:

move the MET reference [3] outside of quotes ('')

==> Done.

10:
move reference [4] to "because of the observation [4]..." (I thought
reference 3 was about the eeggMET event - got confused)

==> Done.

11:

heavy new particles -> new heavy particles

==> Done.

15-17:

You already have the details in Ref.5 - no need to keep them in the
text. Suggest to rephrase:

"Since many versions of these models have a similar phenomenology, we
consider the scenario[5], in which the latest neutralino..."

==> Done.

31, 33:

add neutralino subscript to $\tau$

==> Done.

34:

"...gg+met+X final state where X ..." -> "...inclusive gg+met final state."

==> We're using the high ET objects explicitly with the HT cut, which is a subset of
inclusive gg+met.

61:
define $\eta$ (you have the definition in the Ref.3, so just refer to it)

==> Done.

66:

EMTiming also measures the arrival time of jets (which have em
component), right (sorry for my ignorance)? may be rephrase "measures
the arrival time of electrons and photons" to make it a more general
statement?

==> Changed to just photons since we don't use the arrival time of either jets or
electrons in our anaysis.

82:

you are using "j" and "jet" for jets - be consistent (define "jet (j)"?)

==> Done.

p2

2:

"jet" in a superscript - be consistent (same comment as for p1 line 82)

==> Done.

26:

Add a comment to beam-ray muon paragraph to clarify: 
(from the p direction) -> (mostly from the more intense p beam)

==> Done.

28: 

reference 16 (PRL 101, 181602 (2008)) refers to another reference for
the "standard beam halo (BH) suppression requirements", which is
Phys.Rev.D 78 032015 - just reference the PRD one (it's already in
Ref.15)

==> Done.

31-32:

measurement fluctuations -> mismeasurements

==> Done.

35:

fake -> mismeasured ("fake")

==> Done.

39:

move "P(...)" after the definition of $\Et^{fluct}$ (to the end of the
sentence)

==> Done.

46:

mis-measured -> mismeasured

==> Done.

81:

"photons from ISR/FSR removed" - did you just use the samples with
QED ISR/FSR turned off?

==> No. We use regular pythia samples, but we match detector photons with
objects at HEPG level and remove those events where photons originate from
quark ISR or lepton FSR. This is described in Section 3.3 in cdfnote 9575.

92:

"similarly, we select a beam related..." - which cuts do you apply? (i
looked at the 570pb-1 PRD - is it still {-20, -6} ns for BH?)

==> No. For simplicity we use {-20,20} to create this B.H. enhanced control sample for a template
for large statistics. This is described in 3.4.1 in the cdfnote 9575. 

103,104: remove parameters (you have them in Ref.[5])

==> Done.

p3:

Fig.1: 

"per" -> "/"
put "CDF Run II" somewhere? (plots live their own life - good to have
the experiment's name on it)

==> Done.

21:

you define HT as a total of et of photons, jets and met. but it's an
inclusive search - don't you have some gg+l events in the sample (ggX
folks have few gg+lepton events)? should the HT be a total of et of
photons, jets, leptons and met?

==> In priciple that's true, but in practical it doesn't matter. The full
description of the definition of HT is given in Section 1.3 in cdfnote 9575 and
includes electrons, but for simplicity we have removed this detail in the text
of PRL. 

23:

the met-significance requirement -> the large met-significance requirement

==> Done.

p4:

Fig.2:

"green" and "yellow" wouldn't work in black and white - suggest to
change to something like "dark grey"/"light grey" (or put "color plots
online" somewhere in the caption...)

==> Changed to green (darker shading) and yellow (lighter shading), which are
consistent with the delayed photon PRD.

Fig.3:
same comment as for the Fig.2

==> Changed to "shaded band", which is consistent with the delayed photon PRD.

p5:

13:

Abdulencia -> Abulencia

==> Done.

17:

You don't really use reference 16 (see comments to the p2, line 28)

==> Done.

24-29:

Reference k-factors used for both Wgamma and Zgamma (currently you
have a reference for Zgamma only), also suggest to add the text about
k-factors / quote numbers, for instance:

\bibitem{Baur_NLO} 
U. Baur, T. Han, and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{48}, 5140
(1993); U.~Baur, T.~Han and J.~Ohnemus, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 2823
(1998); Both the $\Wg$ and $Z\gamma$ K-factors are fixed at 1.36 for
generated $\ell\nu$ masses below 76 $\GeV$ and for generated $\lplm$
masses below 86 $\GeV$. Above the poles the K-factors grow with
$\Et^{\gamma}$ to be 1.62 and 1.53 at $\Et^{\gamma}=100$ $\GeV$ for
$\Wg$ and $Z\gamma$, respectively.

==> Done.