Institutional review: EXO-19-013

Thursday 15 Oct 2020, 13:00 → 14:00 Europe/Berlin

Sem 5

CDS: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2739359
CADI: http://cms.cern.ch/iCMS/analysisadmin/cadi?ancode=EXO-19-013
CWR comment deadline: 16/10/2020

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w8tKX_2bWwhI317-N6sMxEGczce0GfENoAtdPxAuL_Y/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

Zoom link:

https://cern.zoom.us/j/4160481419

Meeting ID: 416 048 1419

Passcode: CWR

Guidelines for the Institutional Comments:

Spirit and intent of the Collaboration-Wide Review:
---------------------------------------------------
As a general guideline, we ask that individuals and groups reviewing a CMS publication draft concentrate on substantive matters of science and questions of clarity.
For the sake of streamlining the process, comments to a CMS publication draft are divided in two sets:
A. English/Style/Formatting (including figures)
B. Everything else (e.g. strategy, paper structure, emphasis, additions/subtractions, etc).
Comments of type B are the responsibility of the authors, who have to furnish clear answers to all such comments on CDS before the Final Reading can be scheduled.
Comments of type A are sent to the Language Editor responsible for [assigned to?] this paper,  (S)he will decide on any actions arising from such comments.
In general, responses to type A comments will not be posted on CDS, except in cases where an issue of language or style significantly affects the publication in question.
 

From Roberval:

CWR Comments of EXO-19-013 Paper
--------------------------------
General comments
----------------
The paper is very interesting and well structured.
In  general I would prefer that the authors use more passive voice. There is too much active voice: “We did this… we did that…” etc

Type B comments
---------------
Introduction
L.   8: suggestion: remove the whole sentence “The expansive parameter...”
L.  33: why not briefly mention the results obtained in the previous analysis?

Event preselection
L. 115: what does "well-behaved" mean?
        remove the word "additional", so far no other offline requirement was imposed

Vertex reconstruction and selection
L. 119 - 121: Suggestion: remove the whole sentence "The first step...", it doesn't add relevant information, also the definition of hits are more complex than simple electrical signals.
L. 133: remove "these are considered compatible and", it is not clear what "compatible" here means. There are two possible consequences: either the vertices are merged or the vertices remain separate, in the latter one vertice may even be dropped.
L. 149 - 150: "...the vertex position along the beam axis shifts by at least 50um when the track is dropped..." then remove the sentence "The threshold for removal is a 50 μm shift."
L. 160 - 161: "This search focuses on signal models with pair-produced long-lived particles, therefore events containing at least two vertices are required."
L. 165: "... which is done using data in control regions."
L. 166 - 177: The whole paragraph seems to be more suitable to section 6 (Search strategy)

Signal efficiency measurement
L. 202 - 204: "To study the signal vertex reconstruction efficiency, tracks from the primary vertex were artificially displaced to produce signal-like vertices in data and background simulation samples before performing the reconstruction procedure."

Type A Comments
---------------
L. 122: remove the colon after “have”
L. 154: remove the colon after “have”