Sunil Somalwar's comments to the first draft of ggMET paper: ----------------------------------------------------------- Title: ----------------------------------------------------------- Search for models? There are plenty of them. What about "Search for Gauge-Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking Supersymmetry...." ==> Search for Gauge-Mediated Supersymmetry-Breaking Events in the gg+Missing Transverse Energy Final State at CDF II ----------------------------------------------------------- Abstract: ----------------------------------------------------------- suggestions: - an optimized search -> search ==> Done. - a gravitino producing -> a gravitino, producing ==> The abstract was re-written, taking into account avoiding abbreviation definitions. - Can abbreviation definitions be avoided in the abstract? ==> Done, he formatting now follows the formatting of the three previous 202/pb PRD and the delayed photon PRL and PRD which use the SUSY particle names. See Ref.[7] and [15] in our PRL draft. ----------------------------------------------------------- Text: ----------------------------------------------------------- p1 7: For theoretical reasons -> vague ==> We used the same phrase as in 202/pb PRD (See Ref.[7] in our PRL draft). 25: Thus -> How does this sentence follow the previous sentense. ==> The reason is that if the chi10 is about 100 GeV that means that the squarks are about 600 GeV from the GMSB mass relations which is way above our ability to observe them. However, if we don't make this explicit then it's true we shouldn't say much. Anyway "Thus" removed. 29: Complementary searches : Do you mean different techniques? ==> Done. 30-32: Why lifetime regions are different in line 30 and 32 (1 ns? or 2ns?) ==> Done. What we have makes it look like the edge is a hard one and there is clearly overlap in the sensitivity regions. 31: We describe a search for GMSB models with tau<2 ns, favored for large m,..-> We describe a search that is sensitive to ... ==> We describe a search for neutralinos that is sensitive to tau<2n...." 40: EMTiming system -> EM defined later, which should be defined earlier. ==> Changed to phrase "photon timing system here". 41: a new MET resolution model (Met Model) : - 1) Use quotes instead of italics, 2) Model of what?, 3)Can you move this with improved analysis techniques to intro? ==> a new model of Met resolution (Met Model) for (1) and (2). For (3) we think this is important and should go in the introduction of what's different. It shouldn't go in the first paragraph which is just about the physics model. 46: taking into account the background...- pointless sentence ==> Done. This is an a priori analysis so we made this more explicit. 65: This analysis is performed in two state, the.... -> bad grammer, no need this sentence in some sense since readers don't care.. ==> Done. 69-71: This sentence makes it sound like online selection is optional. ==> Done. 75: eta < 1.1 and ET >13 GeV is imposed? ==> Done. 77: the standard photon identification - the standard CDF photon identification ==> Done. 80-83: Postpone this sentence and define \gamma_{fake} ==> Done. 84: underline in presample ==> Done. p2 3: the calorimeter - the photon reconstruction in the calorimeter ==> Done. 7-10: except when if ..... - unless assigning the photons... ==> Done. 11: cosmic ray -> cosmic rays ==> Done. 24: Define phi ==> Add more in reference [3]: phi is the azimuthal angle -> phi is the azimuthal angle relative to the horizontal plane. 28: After the sentence add "This set is dominated by..." ==> Done. 46: a pseudo-experiments methods -> psedo-experiments ==> Done. 50: What are these parameters? ==> First wee fixed line 48: resolutions -> resolution functions Then fixed "parameters" -> parameters of the resolution functions 53: subtract off -> subtract ==> Done. 56: on -> for ==> Done. 88-90: Using .... we identify... -> We identify.... using... ==> Done. 91: extrapolation techniques : vague ==> Done. 97-99 Make active sentence ==> Done. 103: all -> remove ==> The point is that we don't just simulate SOME of them, but we simulate ALL of them as described in Section 4 in CDF Note 9575. 104: and a detector simulation -> and followed by a detector simulation ==> Done. 105-108: Remove this sentence. ==> Done. p3: Fig.1: In caption ".. the expected background MetSig prediction.." "expected" is awkward. ==> Done. 6: Define ISR/FSR ==> This was defined in line 77 in page 2. 9-13: Break up the sentence. "in the no-signal assumption.."? ==> Done. 18: Define HT before figure 1. ==> Done as re-phrase line 99 only referring top of figure 1. 21: slashed in "gets rid of" => Done. 23: decays -> decay ==> Done. 28: are -> consist of ==> Done. 29: The second arrow means decay? Do you mean signature? => Done. 31: back to back -> back-to-back => Done. 34: Put therefore after "cut" ==>Done. 46-49: "events" should follow 0.92+-0.37. "from non-collision" not clear. Done. 52: Why do you join unrelated sentences? Also he mentions this happens in several places. ==> Done. p4: Fig.2: In y-axis isn't it sigma*BR? ==> Assume all production mechanism so there is no BR considered, which is explained in lines 17-18 in p.1. ------------------------------ Reference ------------------------------ [1] unnecessary general references ==> We'll go with whatever the GPS want, but this is what we used in the 202/pb PRD and the delayed photon PRL/PRD. See Ref.[7] and [15] in our PRL draft. [3] ith -> i^{th} ==> Done. [13] PRD in progress -> Phys.Rev.D, to be submitted. ==> Done. ---------- General suggestion: Better abandon the "presample" business by rephrasing some online requirements more explicitly. ==> Presample was replaced with the inclusive diphoton sample and the final signl sample. Also "Online requirements" are re-written.