Context Navigation

← Previous Changeset
Next Changeset →

Changeset 561 in svn

Timestamp:

Apr 5, 2010, 3:46:43 PM (15 years ago)

Author:

Xavier Rouby

Message:

commentaires VL: derniere vague

Location:

trunk/paper/CommPhysComp

Files:

: 4 edited

figures/fig12.eps (modified) ( previous)
figures/fig13.eps (modified) ( previous)
notes.pdf (modified) ( previous)
notes.tex (modified) (32 diffs)

Legend:

: Unmodified
: Added
: Removed

trunk/paper/CommPhysComp/notes.tex

-              r560
+              r561
 calorimeters and a muon system, and possible very forward detectors arranged
 along the beamline.
+The framework is interfaced to standard file formats (e.g.\ Les Houches Event File or \texttt{HepMC}) and outputs observables such as isolated leptons, missing transverse energy and collection of jets which can be used for dedicated analyses.
+The simulation of the detector response takes into account the effect of magnetic field, the granularity of the calorimeters and subdetector resolutions.
+A simplified preselection can also be applied on processed events for trigger emulation. Detection of very forward scattered particles relies on the transport in beamlines with the \textit{Hector} software. Finally, the \textsc{FROG} 2D/3D event display is used for visualisation of the collision final states.
+The framework is interfaced to standard file formats (e.g.\ Les Houches Event
+File or \texttt{HepMC}) and outputs observables such as isolated leptons,
+missing transverse energy and collection of jets which can be used for dedicated
+analyses. The simulation of the detector response takes into account the effect
+of magnetic field, the granularity of the calorimeters and subdetector
+resolutions.
+A simplified preselection can also be applied on processed events for trigger
+emulation. Detection of very forward scattered particles relies on the transport
+in beamlines with the \textit{Hector} software. Finally, the \textsc{FROG} 2D/3D
+event display is used for visualisation of the collision final states.
 \\ \\
 …
+This complexity can only be handled by large collaborations. Such simulation is
+very complicated, technical and requires a large \texttt{CPU} power.
+This complexity can only be handled by large collaborations.
 Phenomenological studies, looking for the observability of given signals,
 require in general only fast but realistic estimates of the expected signal
 …
 \textsc{ATLAS}), this input parameter file interfaces a flexible parametrisation
 for other cases, e.g.\ at future linear colliders~\citep{qr:datacards}.
+If no detector card is provided, predefined values based on ``typical''
+\textsc{CMS} acceptances and resolutions are used. The geometrical coverage of
+the various subsystems used in the default configuration are summarised in
+Tab.~\ref{tab:defEta}. The detector is assumed to be strictly symmetric around
+the beam axis.
+The geometrical coverage of the various subsystems used in the default
+configuration are summarised in Tab.~\ref{tab:defEta}.
 \begin{table}[t]
 …
 position at which charged particles enter the calorimeters and their
 corresponding tracks. The field extension is limited to the tracker volume and
+is in particular not applied for muon chambers. Howerver, this is not a limiting
+factor as the resolution applied for muon reconstruction is the one expected by
+the experiment, which consequently includes the effects of the magnetic field
+within the muon system.
+is in particular not applied for muon chambers. This is not a limiting
+factor since the magnetic field is not used for the muon momentum smearing.
 \subsection{Tracks reconstruction}
+Every stable charged particle with a transverse momentum above some threshold and lying inside the detector volume covered by the tracker provides a track.
+Every stable charged particle with a transverse momentum above some threshold
+and lying inside the detector volume covered by the tracker provides a track.
 By default, a track is assumed to be reconstructed with $90\%$ probability if
 its transverse momentum $p_T$ is higher than $0.9~\textrm{GeV}/c$ and if its
 pseudorapidity $|\eta| \leq 2.5$~\citep{qr:tracks}. No smearing is currently
+applied on tracks.
+applied on track parameters. For each track, the positions at vertex
+$(\eta,\phi)$ and at the entry point in the calorimeter layers
+$(\eta,\phi)_{calo}$ are available.
 …
 regions~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution,bib:ATLASresolution}. It is thus very
 important to compute the exact coordinates of the entry point of the particles
 into the calorimeters, via the magnetic field calculations.
+into the calorimeters, in taking the magnetic field effect into account.
 The smallest unit for geometrical sampling of the calorimeters is a
 …
 where $S$, $N$ and $C$ are the \textit{stochastic}, \textit{noise} and \textit{constant} terms, respectively, and $\oplus$ stands for quadratic additions~\citep{qr:energysmearing}.\\
+In the default parametrisation, ECAL and HCAL are assumed to cover the pseudorapidity range $|\eta|<3$, and FCAL between $3.0$ and $5.0$, with different response to electromagnetic objects ($e^\pm, \gamma$) or hadrons.
+Muons and neutrinos are assumed not to interact with the calorimeters~\citep{qr:invisibleparticles}.
+The default values of the stochastic, noise and constant terms are given in Tab.~\ref{tab:defResol}.\\
+In the default parametrisation, ECAL and HCAL are assumed to cover the
+pseudorapidity range $|\eta|<3$, and FCAL between $3.0$ and $5.0$, with
+different response to electrons and photons, or to hadrons.
+Muons and neutrinos are assumed not to interact with the
+calorimeters~\citep{qr:invisibleparticles}. The default values of the
+stochastic, noise and constant terms are given in Tab.~\ref{tab:defResol}.\\
 \begin{table}[!h]
 …
 Electrons and photons leave their energy in the electromagnetic parts of the
+calorimeters (\textsc{ECAL} and \textsc{FCAL}, e.m.), while charged and neutral
+final-state hadrons interact with the hadronic parts (\textsc{HCAL} and
 \textsc{FCAL}, had.).
+Electrons and photons are assumed to leave their energy in the electromagnetic
+parts of the calorimeters (\textsc{ECAL} and \textsc{FCAL}, e.m.), while charged
+and neutral final-state hadrons are assumed to leave their entire energy
+interactin the hadronic parts (\textsc{HCAL} and \textsc{FCAL}, had.).
 Some long-living particles, such as the $K^0_s$ and $\Lambda$'s, with lifetime
 $c\tau$ smaller than $10~\textrm{mm}$ are considered as stable particles by the
 generators although they may decay before the calorimeters. The energy smearing
+of such particles is therefore performed using the expected fraction of the
+energy, determined according to their decay products, that would be deposited
+into the \textsc{ECAL} ($E_{\textsc{ECAL}}$) and into the \textsc{HCAL}
+($E_{\textsc{HCAL}}$). Defining $F$ as the fraction of the energy leading to a
 \textsc{HCAL} deposit, the two energy values are given by
+generators although they may decay before reaching the calorimeters. The energy
+smearing of such particles is therefore performed using the expected fraction of
+the energy, determined according to their decay products, that would be
+deposited into the \textsc{ECAL} ($E_{\textsc{ECAL}}$) and into the
+\textsc{HCAL} ($E_{\textsc{HCAL}}$). Defining $F$ as the fraction of the energy
+leading to a \textsc{HCAL} deposit, the two energy values are given by
 \begin{equation}
 \left\{
 …
 \right.
 \end{equation}
+where $0 \leq F \leq 1$. The electromagnetic part is handled similarly as for
+electrons and photons. The resulting calorimetry energy measurement given after
+the application of the smearing is then $E = E_{\textsc{HCAL}} +
+where $0 \leq F \leq 1$. The resulting calorimetry energy measurement given
+after the application of the smearing is then $E = E_{\textsc{HCAL}} +
 E_{\textsc{ECAL}}$. For $K_S^0$ and $\Lambda$ hadrons, the energy fraction is
 $F$ is assumed to be $0.7$~\citep{qr:emhadratios}.\\
 …
 (\textsc{MET}), and are used as input for the jet reconstruction algorithms.
-\section{High-level object reconstruction}
 The output file created by \textit{Delphes}~\citep{qr:analysistree} stores the
 final collections of particles ($e^\pm$, $\mu^\pm$, $\gamma$) and objects (light
+jets, $b$-jets, $\tau$-jets, $E_T^\textrm{miss}$). In addition, some detector
+data are added, such as tracks, calorimetric cells and hits in the very forward
+detectors (\textsc{ZDC}, \textsc{RP220} and \textsc{FP420}, see
+Sec.~\ref{sec:vfd}). While electrons, muons and photons are easily identified,
+other quantities are more difficult to evaluate as they rely on sophisticated
+algorithms (e.g. jets or missing energy).
+jets, $b$-jets, $\tau$-jets, $E_T^\textrm{miss}$). In addition, collections of
+tracks, calorimetric cells and hits in the very forward detectors (\textsc{ZDC},
+\textsc{RP220} and \textsc{FP420}, see Sec.~\ref{sec:vfd}) are added.
+\section{High-level reconstruction}
+While electrons,
+muons and photons are easily identified, other quantities are more difficult to
+evaluate as they rely on sophisticated algorithms (e.g. jets or missing energy).
 For most of these objects, their four-momentum and related quantities are
 …
 collections if they fall into the acceptance of the tracking system and have a
 transverse momentum above some threshold (default: $p_T > 10~\textrm{GeV}/c$).
+Assuming a good measurement of the track parameters in the real experiment, the
+electron energy can be reasonably recovered. \textit{Delphes} assumes a perfect
+\textit{Delphes} assumes a perfect
 algorithm for clustering and Brehmstrahlung recovery. Electron energy is smeared
 according to the resolution of the calorimetric cell where it points to, but
+independently from any other deposited energy is this cell.
+Electrons and photons may create a candidate in the jet collection.
+independently from any other deposited energy in this cell.
+Electrons and photons may create a candidate in the jet collection. The $(\eta,
+\phi)$ position at vertex corresponds to corresponding track vertex.
 \subsubsection*{Muons}
 Generator-level muons entering the muon detector acceptance (default: $-2.4
 \leq \eta \leq 2.4$) and overpassing some threshold (default : $p_T >
+\leq \eta \leq 2.4$) and overpassing some threshold (default: $p_T >
 ~\textrm{GeV}/c$) are considered as good candidates for analyses.
 The application of the detector resolution on the muon momentum depends on a
 Gaussian smearing of the $p_T$~\citep{qr:muonsmearing}.
 Neither $\eta$ nor $\phi$ variables are modified beyond the calorimeters: no
+additional magnetic field is applied. Multiple scattering is neglected. This
+implies that low energy muons have in \textit{Delphes} a better resolution than
+in a real detector.  At last, the particles which might leak out of the
+calorimeters into the muon systems (\textit{punch-through}) are not considered
 as muon candidates in \textit{Delphes}.
+Neither $\eta$ nor $\phi$ variables are modified beyond the calorimeters.
+Multiple scattering is neglected. This implies that low energy muons have in
+\textit{Delphes} a better resolution than in a real detector.  At last, the
+particles which might leak out of the calorimeters into the muon systems
+(\textit{punch-through}) are not considered as muon candidates in
+\textit{Delphes}.
 \subsubsection*{Charged lepton isolation}
 …
 isolation criteria can be applied. This requires that electron or muon
 candidates are isolated in the detector from any other particle, within a small
+cone. In \textit{Delphes}, charged lepton isolation demands that there is no
+other charged particle with $p_T>2~\textrm{GeV}/c$ within a cone of $\Delta R =
+\sqrt{\Delta \eta^2 + \Delta \phi^2} <0.5$ centered on the cell associated to
+the charged lepton $\ell$, obviously taking the magnetic field into account.
+cone. In \textit{Delphes}, charged lepton isolation demands by default that
+there is no other charged particle with $p_T>2~\textrm{GeV}/c$ within a cone of
+$\Delta R = \sqrt{\Delta \eta^2 + \Delta \phi^2} <0.5$ centered on the cell
+associated to the charged lepton $\ell$, obviously taking the magnetic field
+into account.
 The result (i.e.\ \textit{isolated} or \textit{not}) is added to the charged lepton measured properties.
 …
 In jets, several particle can leave their energy into a given calorimetric cell,
 which broadens the jet energy resolution. However, the energy of charged
 particles associated to jets can be deduced from their reconstructed track, thus
+particles associated to jets can be deduced from their associated track, thus
 providing a way to identify some of the components of cells with multiple hits.
 When the \textit{energy flow} is switched on in \textit{Delphes}, the energy of
 tracks pointing to calorimetric cells is subtracted and smeared separately,
 before running the chosen jet reconstruction algorithm. This option allows a
 better jet $E$ reconstruction~\citep{qr:energyflow}.
+better jet energy reconstruction~\citep{qr:energyflow}.
 \subsection{$b$-tagging}
 …
 A jet is tagged as $b$-jets if its direction lies in the acceptance of the
+tracker and if it is associated to a parent $b$-quark. By default, a $b$-tagging
+efficiency of $40\%$ is assumed if the jet has a parent $b$ quark. For $c$-jets
+and light jets (i.e.\ originating in $u$, $d$, $s$ quarks or in gluons), a fake
+$b$-tagging efficiency of $10 \%$ and $1 \%$ respectively is
+assumed~\citep{qr:btag}. The (mis)tagging relies on the identity of
+tracker and if it is associated to a parent $b$-quark.
+The (mis)tagging relies on the identity of
 the most energetic parton within a cone around the jet axis, with a
 radius equal to the one used to reconstruct the jet (default: $\Delta R$ of
+$0.7$). In current version of \textit{Delphes}, the displacement of secondary
+vertices is not simulated.
+\subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\tau$}{\texttau} identification}
+$0.7$).
+By default, a $b$-tagging efficiency of $40\%$ is assumed if the jet has a
+parent $b$ quark. For $c$-jets and light jets (i.e.\ originating in $u$, $d$,
+$s$ quarks or in gluons), a fake $b$-tagging efficiency of $10 \%$ and $1 \%$
+is assumed respectively~\citep{qr:btag}. Therefore, in current version of
+\textit{Delphes}, the displacement of secondary vertices is not taken into
+account. As such, the $b$-tagging efficiency is below the expected $40\%$.
+\subsection{Identification of hadronic \texorpdfstring{$\tau$}{\texttau} decays}
 Jets originating from $\tau$-decays are identified using a procedure consistent
 …
 The tagging relies on two properties of the $\tau$ lepton. First, $77\%$ of the
 $\tau$ hadronic decays contain only one charged hadron associated to a few
 neutrals (Tab.~\ref{tab:taudecay}). Secondly, the particles arisen from the
+neutrals (\textit{1-prong}). Secondly, the particles arisen from the
 $\tau$ lepton produce narrow jets in the calorimeter (this is defined as the jet
 \textit{collimation}).
-\begin{table}[!h]
-\begin{center}
-\caption{ Branching ratios for $\tau^-$ lepton~\citep{bib:pdg}. $h^\pm$ and
-$h^0$ refer to charged and neutral hadrons, respectively. $n \geq 0$ and $m \geq
-$ are integers.
-\vspace{0.5cm}  }
-\begin{tabular}[!h]{lll}
-\hline
- \multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Leptonic decays}}\\
- & $ \tau^- \rightarrow e^- \ \bar \nu_e \ \nu_\tau$ & $17.9\% $ \\
- & $ \tau^- \rightarrow \mu^- \ \bar \nu_\mu  \ \nu_\tau$ & $17.4\%$ \\
- \multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{Hadronic decays}}\\
- & $ \tau^- \rightarrow h^-\ (n\times h^\pm) \ (m\times h^0) \  \nu_\tau$  & $64.7\%$ \\
- & $ \tau^- \rightarrow h^-\ (m\times h^0) \ \nu_\tau$  & $50.1\%$ \\
- & $ \tau^- \rightarrow h^-\ h^+ h^-  (m\times h^0) \ \nu_\tau$  & $14.6\%$ \\
-\hline
-\end{tabular}
-\label{tab:taudecay}
-\end{center}
-\end{table}
 \begin{figure}[!ht]
 …
 of tracks associated to particles with significant transverse momenta is one and
 only one in a cone of radius $R^\textrm{tracks}$ ($3-$prong $\tau$-jets are
+dropped). This cone should be entirely incorporated into the tracker to be taken
 into account. Default values of these parameters are given in
+rejected). This cone should be entirely incorporated into the tracker to be
+taken into account. Default values of these parameters are given in
 Tab.~\ref{tab:tauRef}.
 …
 worsens directly the measured missing transverse energy $\overrightarrow
 {E_T}^\textrm{miss}$. In \textit{Delphes}, \textsc{MET} is based on the
 calorimetric cells only. Muons and neutrinos are therefore not taken into
 account for its evaluation:
+calorimetric cells only. Muons and neutrinos are therefore
+not taken into account for its evaluation:
 \begin{equation}
 \overrightarrow{E_T}^\textrm{miss} = - \sum^\textrm{cells}_i \overrightarrow{E_T}(i)
 …
 \section{\label{sec:vfd}Very forward detector simulation}
+Most of the recent experiments in beam colliders have additional
+instrumentation along the beamline. These extend the $\eta$ coverage to higher
+values, for the detection of very forward final-state particles. In
+\textit{Delphes}, Zero Degree Calorimeters, roman pots and forward taggers have
+been implemented (Fig.~\ref{fig:fdets}), similarly as for CMS and
 ATLAS collaborations~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution, bib:ATLASresolution}.
+Collider experiments often have additional instrumentation along the beamline.
+These extend the $\eta$ coverage to higher values, for the detection of very
+forward final-state particles. In \textit{Delphes}, Zero Degree Calorimeters,
+roman pots and forward taggers have been implemented (Fig.~\ref{fig:fdets}),
+similarly as for CMS and ATLAS collaborations~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution,
+bib:ATLASresolution}.
 \begin{figure}[!ht]
 …
 To be able to reach these detectors, particles must have a charge identical to
 the beam particles, and a momentum very close to the nominal value of the beam.
+These taggers are near-beam detectors located a few millimetres from the true
 beam trajectory and this distance defines their acceptance
+the beam particles, and a momentum very close to the nominal value of the beam
+particules. These taggers are near-beam detectors located a few millimetres from
+the true beam trajectory and this distance defines their acceptance
 (Tab.~\ref{tab:fdetacceptance}). For instance, roman pots at $220~\textrm{m}$
 from the  \textsc{IP} and $2~\textrm{mm}$ from the beam will detect all forward
 protons with an energy between $120$ and $900~\textrm{GeV}$~\citep{bib:hector}.
+In practice, in the \textsc{LHC}, only positively charged muons ($\mu^+$) and
+protons can reach the forward taggers as other particles with a single positive
+charge coming from the interaction points will decay before their possible
+tagging. In \textit{Delphes}, extra hits coming from the beam-gas events or
+In \textit{Delphes}, extra hits coming from the beam-gas events or
 secondary particles hitting the beampipe in front of the detectors are not taken
 into account.
 …
 these the particle energy ($E$) and the momentum transfer it underwent during
 the interaction ($q^2$) can be reconstructed at the analysis level (it is not
 implemented in the current versions of \textit{Delphes}. The time-of-flight
+implemented in the current versions of \textit{Delphes}). The time-of-flight
 measurement can be smeared with a Gaussian distribution (default value
 $\sigma_t = 0~\textrm{s}$)~\citep{qr:protontaggers}.
 …
 \textsc{ATLAS}~\citep{bib:ATLASresolution} detectors.
+Electrons and muons are by construction equal to the experiment designs, as the
+Gaussian smearing of their kinematics properties is defined according to the
+detector specifications. Similarly, the $b$-tagging efficiency (for real
+$b$-jets) and misidentification rates (for fake $b$-jets) are taken directly
+from the expected values of the experiment. Unlike these simple objects, jets
+and missing transverse energy should be carefully cross-checked.
+Electrons and muons resolutions in \textit{Delphes} match by construction the
+experiment designs, as the Gaussian smearing of their kinematics properties is
+defined according to the detector specifications. Similarly, the $b$-tagging
+efficiency (for real $b$-jets) and misidentification rates (for fake $b$-jets)
+are taken directly from the expected values of the experiment. Unlike these
+simple objects, jets and missing transverse energy should be carefully
+cross-checked.
 \subsection{Jet resolution}
 …
 The jets made of generator-level particles, here referred as \textit{MC jets},
 are obtained by applying the algorithm to all particles considered as stable
 after hadronisation (i.e.\ including muons). Jets produced by \textit{Delphes}
+after hadronisation. Jets produced by \textit{Delphes}
 and satisfying the matching criterion are called hereafter \textit{reconstructed
 jets}. All jets are computed with the clustering algorithm (JetCLU) with a cone
 …
 %\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{resolutionJet}
 \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig8}
+\caption{Resolution of the transverse energy of reconstructed jets $E_T^\textrm{rec}$ as a function of the transverse energy of the closest jet of generator-level particles $E_T^\textrm{MC}$, in a \textsc{CMS}-like detector. The jets events are reconstructed with the JetCLU clustering algorithm with a cone radius of $0.7$. The maximum separation between the reconstructed and \textsc{MC}-jets is $\Delta R= 0.25$. Dotted line is the fit result for comparison to the \textsc{CMS} resolution~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution}, in blue. The $pp \rightarrow gg$ dijet events have been generated with MadGraph/MadEvent and hadronised with \textit{Pythia}.}
+\caption{Resolution of the transverse energy of reconstructed jets
+$E_T^\textrm{rec}$ as a function of the transverse energy of the closest jet of
+generator-level particles $E_T^\textrm{MC}$, in a \textsc{CMS}-like detector.
+The jets events are reconstructed with the JetCLU clustering algorithm with a
+cone radius of $0.7$. The maximum separation between the reconstructed and
+\textsc{MC}-jets is $\Delta R= 0.25$. Dotted line is the fit result for
+comparison to the \textsc{CMS} resolution~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution}, in blue.
+The $pp \rightarrow gg$ dijet events have been generated with MadGraph/MadEvent
+and hadronised with \textit{Pythia}.}
 \label{fig:jetresolcms}
 \end{center}
 \end{figure}
+The resulting jet resolution as a function of $E_T^\textrm{MC}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:jetresolcms}.
+The resulting jet resolution as a function of $E_T^\textrm{MC}$ is shown in
+Fig.~\ref{fig:jetresolcms}.
 This distribution is fitted with a function of the following form:
 \begin{equation}
 …
 \end{equation}
 where $a$, $b$ and $c$ are the fit parameters.
+It is then compared to the resolution published by the \textsc{CMS} collaboration~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution}. The resolution curves from \textit{Delphes} and \textsc{CMS} are in good agreement.
+Similarly, the jet resolution is evaluated for an \textsc{ATLAS}-like detector. The $pp \rightarrow gg$ events are here arranged in $8$ adjacent bins in $p_T$. A $k_T$ reconstruction algorithm with $R=0.6$ is chosen and the maximal matching distance between the \textsc{MC}-jets and the reconstructed jets is set to $\Delta R=0.2$. The relative energy resolution is evaluated in each bin by:
+It is then compared to the resolution published by the \textsc{CMS}
+collaboration~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution}. The resolution curves from
+\textit{Delphes} and \textsc{CMS} are in good agreement.
+Similarly, the jet resolution is evaluated for an \textsc{ATLAS}-like detector.
+The $pp \rightarrow gg$ events are here arranged in $8$ adjacent bins in $p_T$.
+A $k_T$ reconstruction algorithm with $R=0.6$ is chosen and the maximal matching
+distance between the \textsc{MC}-jets and the reconstructed jets is set to
+$\Delta R=0.2$. The relative energy resolution is evaluated in each bin by:
 \begin{equation}
+\frac{\sigma(E)}{E} = \sqrt{~~ \Bigg \langle ~\Bigg( \frac{E^\textrm{rec} - E^\textrm{MC}}{E^\textrm{rec}} \Bigg)^2 ~ \Bigg \rangle ~ - ~ \Bigg \langle \frac{E^\textrm{rec} - E^\textrm{MC}}{ E^\textrm{rec} } \Bigg \rangle^2}.
+\frac{\sigma(E)}{E} = \sqrt{~~ \Bigg \langle ~\Bigg( \frac{E^\textrm{rec} -
+E^\textrm{MC}}{E^\textrm{rec}} \Bigg)^2 ~ \Bigg \rangle ~ - ~ \Bigg \langle
+\frac{E^\textrm{rec} - E^\textrm{MC}}{ E^\textrm{rec} } \Bigg \rangle^2}.
 \end{equation}
+Figure~\ref{fig:jetresolatlas} shows a good agreement between the resolution obtained with \textit{Delphes}, the result of the fit with Equation~\ref{eq:fitresolution} and the corresponding curve provided by the \textsc{ATLAS} collaboration~\citep{bib:ATLASresolution}.
+Figure~\ref{fig:jetresolatlas} shows a good agreement between the resolution
+obtained with \textit{Delphes}, the result of the fit with
+Equation~\ref{eq:fitresolution} and the corresponding curve provided by the
+\textsc{ATLAS} collaboration~\citep{bib:ATLASresolution}.
 \begin{figure}[!ht]
 \begin{center}
 \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig9}
+\caption{Relative energy resolution of reconstructed jets as a function of the energy of the closest jet of generator-level particles $E^\textrm{MC}$, in an \textsc{ATLAS}-like detector. The jets are reconstructed with the $k_T$ algorithm with a radius $R=0.6$. The maximal matching distance between \textsc{MC}- and reconstructed jets is $\Delta R=0.2$. Only central jets are considered ($|\eta|<0.5$). Dotted line is the fit result for comparison to the \textsc{ATLAS} resolution~\citep{bib:ATLASresolution}, in blue. The $pp \rightarrow gg$ di-jet events have been generated with MadGraph/MadEvent and hadronised with \textit{Pythia}.}
+\caption{Relative energy resolution of reconstructed jets as a function of the
+energy of the closest jet of generator-level particles $E^\textrm{MC}$, in an
+\textsc{ATLAS}-like detector. The jets are reconstructed with the $k_T$
+algorithm with a radius $R=0.6$. The maximal matching distance between
+\textsc{MC}- and reconstructed jets is $\Delta R=0.2$. Only central jets are
+considered ($|\eta|<0.5$). Dotted line is the fit result for comparison to the
+\textsc{ATLAS} resolution~\citep{bib:ATLASresolution}, in blue. The $pp
+\rightarrow gg$ di-jet events have been generated with MadGraph/MadEvent and
+hadronised with \textit{Pythia}.}
 \label{fig:jetresolatlas}
 \end{center}
 …
 \subsection{MET resolution}
+All major detectors at hadron colliders have been designed to be as much hermetic as possible in order to detect the presence of one or more neutrinos and/or new weakly interacting particles through apparent missing transverse energy.
+The resolution of the $\overrightarrow{E_T}^\textrm{miss}$ variable, as obtained with \textit{Delphes}, is then crucial.
+The samples used to study the \textsc{MET} performance are identical to those used for the jet validation.
+It is worth noting that the contribution to $E_T^\textrm{miss}$ from muons is negligible in the studied sample.
+The input samples are divided in five bins of scalar $E_T$ sums $(\Sigma E_T)$. This sum, called \textit{total visible transverse energy}, is defined as the scalar sum of transverse energy in all cells.
+The quality of the \textsc{MET} reconstruction is checked via the resolution on its horizontal component $E_x^\textrm{miss}$.
+The $E_x^\textrm{miss}$ resolution is evaluated in the following way.
+The distribution of the difference between $E_x^\textrm{miss}$ in \textit{Delphes} and at generator-level is fitted with a Gaussian function in each $(\Sigma E_T)$ bin. The fit \textsc{RMS} gives the \textsc{MET} resolution in each bin.
+The resulting value is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:resolETmis} as a function of the total visible transverse
+All major detectors at hadron colliders have been designed to be as hermetic as
+possible in order to detect the presence of one or more neutrinos and/or new
+weakly interacting particles through apparent missing transverse energy.
+The resolution of the $\overrightarrow{E_T}^\textrm{miss}$ variable, as
+obtained with \textit{Delphes}, is then crucial.
+The samples used to study the \textsc{MET} performance are identical to those
+used for the jet validation. It is worth noting that the contribution to
+$E_T^\textrm{miss}$ from muons is negligible in the studied sample.
+The input samples are divided in five bins of scalar $E_T$ sums $(\Sigma E_T)$.
+This sum, called \textit{total visible transverse energy}, is defined as the
+scalar sum of transverse energy in all cells. The quality of the \textsc{MET}
+reconstruction is checked via the resolution on its horizontal component
+$E_x^\textrm{miss}$.
+The $E_x^\textrm{miss}$ resolution is evaluated in the following way. The
+distribution of the difference between $E_x^\textrm{miss}$ in \textit{Delphes}
+and at generator-level is fitted with a Gaussian function in each $(\Sigma E_T)$
+bin. The fit \textsc{RMS} gives the \textsc{MET} resolution in each bin.
+The resulting value is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:resolETmis} as a function of
+the total visible transverse
 energy, for \textsc{CMS}- and \textsc{ATLAS}-like detectors.
 …
 \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig10}
 \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig10b}
+\caption{$\sigma(E^\textrm{mis}_{x})$ as a function on the scalar sum of all cells ($\Sigma E_T$) for $pp \rightarrow gg$ events, for a \textsc{CMS}-like detector (top) and an \textsc{ATLAS}-like detector (bottom), for di-jet events produced with MadGraph/MadEvent and hadronised with \textit{Pythia}.}
+\caption{$\sigma(E^\textrm{mis}_{x})$ as a function on the scalar sum of all
+cells ($\Sigma E_T$) for $pp \rightarrow gg$ events, for a \textsc{CMS}-like
+detector (top) and an \textsc{ATLAS}-like detector (bottom), for di-jet events
+produced with MadGraph/MadEvent and hadronised with \textit{Pythia}.}
 \label{fig:resolETmis}
 \end{center}
 \end{figure}
+The resolution $\sigma_x$ of the horizontal component of \textsc{MET} is observed to behave like
+The resolution $\sigma_x$ of the horizontal component of \textsc{MET} is
+observed to behave like
 \begin{equation}
 \sigma_x = \alpha ~\sqrt{E_T}~~~(\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}),
 …
 where the $\alpha$ parameter depends on the resolution of the calorimeters.
+The \textsc{MET} resolution expected for the \textsc{CMS} detector for similar events is $\sigma_x = (0.6-0.7) ~ \sqrt{E_T} ~ \mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}$ with no pile-up (i.e. extra simultaneous $pp$ collision occurring at high-luminosity in the same bunch crossing)~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution}, which compares very well with the $\alpha = 0.63$ obtained with \textit{Delphes}. Similarly, for an \textsc{ATLAS}-like detector, a value of $0.53$ is obtained by \textit{Delphes} for the $\alpha$ parameter, while the experiment expects it in the range $[0.53~ ;~0.57]$~\citep{bib:ATLASresolution}.
+The \textsc{MET} resolution expected for the \textsc{CMS} detector for similar
+events is $\sigma_x = (0.6-0.7) ~ \sqrt{E_T} ~ \mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}$ with no
+pile-up (i.e. extra simultaneous $pp$ collision occurring at high-luminosity in
+the same bunch crossing)~\citep{bib:cmsjetresolution}, which compares very well
+with the $\alpha = 0.63$ obtained with \textit{Delphes}. Similarly, for an
+\textsc{ATLAS}-like detector, a value of $0.53$ is obtained by \textit{Delphes}
+for the $\alpha$ parameter, while the experiment expects it in the range $[0.53~
+;~0.57]$~\citep{bib:ATLASresolution}.
 \subsection{\texorpdfstring{$\tau$}{\texttau}-jet efficiency}
+Due to the complexity of their reconstruction algorithm, $\tau$-jets have also to be checked.
+Table~\ref{tab:taurecoefficiency} lists the reconstruction efficiencies in \textit{Delphes} for the hadronic $\tau$-jets from $H,Z \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$. The mass of the Higgs boson is set successively to $140$ and $300~\textrm{GeV}/c^2$. The inclusive gauge boson productions  ($pp \rightarrow HX$ and $pp \rightarrow ZX$) are performed with MadGraph/MadEvent and the $\tau$ lepton decay and further hadronisation are handled by \textit{Pythia/Tauola}. All reconstructed $\tau$-jets are $1-$prong, and follow the definition described in section~\ref{btagging}, which is very close to an algorithm of the \textsc{CMS} experiment~\citep{bib:cmstauresolution}. At last, corresponding efficiencies published by the \textsc{CMS} and \textsc{ATLAS} experiments are quoted for comparison. The agreement is good enough at this level to validate the $\tau-$reconstruction.
+Table~\ref{tab:taurecoefficiency} lists the reconstruction efficiencies in
+\textit{Delphes} for the hadronic $\tau$-jets from $H,Z \rightarrow \tau^+
+\tau^-$. The mass of the Higgs boson is set successively to $140$ and
+$300~\textrm{GeV}/c^2$. The inclusive gauge boson productions  ($pp \rightarrow
+HX$ and $pp \rightarrow ZX$) are performed with MadGraph/MadEvent and the $\tau$
+lepton decay and further hadronisation are handled by \textit{Pythia/Tauola}.
+All reconstructed $\tau$-jets are $1-$prong, and follow the definition described
+in section~\ref{btagging}, which is very close to an algorithm of the
+\textsc{CMS} experiment~\citep{bib:cmstauresolution}. At last, corresponding
+efficiencies published by the \textsc{CMS} and \textsc{ATLAS} experiments are
+quoted for comparison. The level of agreement is satisfactory provided possible
+differences due to the event generation chain and the detail of reconstruction
+algorithms.
 \begin{table}[!h]
 \begin{center}
+\caption{Reconstruction efficiencies of $\tau$-jets in $\tau^+ \tau^-$ decays from $Z$ or $H$ bosons, in \textit{Delphes}, \textsc{CMS} and \textsc{ATLAS} experiments~\citep{bib:cmstauresolution,bib:ATLASresolution}. Two scenarios for the mass of the Higgs boson are investigated. Events generated with MadGraph/MadEvent and hadronised with \textit{Pythia}. The decays of $\tau$ leptons is handled by the \textit{Tauola} version embedded in \textit{Pythia}.\vspace{0.5cm}}
+%\begin{tabular}{lll}
+%\hline
+%\multicolumn{2}{c}{\textsc{CMS}} & \\
+%$Z \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$                   & $38 \%$ &  \\
+%$H \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$ & $36 \%$ & $m_H = 150~\textrm{GeV}/c^2$ \\
+%$H \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$ & $47 \%$ & $m_H = 300~\textrm{GeV}/c^2$ \\
+%\multicolumn{2}{c}{Delphes} & \\
+%$H \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$ &$42 \%$  & $m_H = 140~\textrm{GeV}/c^2$ \\
+%\hline
+%\end{tabular}
+\caption{Reconstruction efficiencies of $\tau$-jets in $\tau^+ \tau^-$ decays
+from $Z$ or $H$ bosons, in \textit{Delphes}, \textsc{CMS} and \textsc{ATLAS}
+experiments~\citep{bib:cmstauresolution,bib:ATLASresolution}. Two scenarios for
+the mass of the Higgs boson are investigated. Events generated with
+MadGraph/MadEvent and hadronised with \textit{Pythia}. The decays of $\tau$
+leptons is handled by the \textit{Tauola} version embedded in
+\textit{Pythia}.\vspace{0.5cm}}
 \begin{tabular}{lrlrl}
 \hline
+                                & \textsc{CMS}&Delphes & \textsc{ATLAS}&Delphes         \\
+                                & \textsc{CMS}&Delphes & \textsc{ATLAS}&Delphes
+\\
 $Z \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$   & $38.2\%$ & $32.4\pm1.8\%$     & $33\%$ & $28.6\pm 1.9\%$              \\
 $H(140) \rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$      & $36.3\%$ & $39.9\pm1.6\%$     & & $32.8\pm 1.8\%$             \\
 …
 \section{Visualisation}
+When performing an event analysis, a visualisation tool is useful to convey information about the detector layout and the event topology in a simple way. The \textit{Fast and Realistic OpenGL Displayer} \textsc{FROG}~\citep{bib:FROG} has been interfaced in \textit{Delphes}, allowing an easy display of the defined detector configuration~\citep{qr:frog}.
+%\footnote{\texttt{[code] } To prepare the visualisation, the \texttt{FLAG\_FROG} parameter should be equal to $1$.}.
+% \begin{figure}[!ht]
+% \begin{center}
+% \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Detector_DELPHES_1}
+% \caption{Layout of the generic detector geometry assumed in Delphes. The innermost layer, close to the interaction point, is a central tracking system (pink), embedded into a solenoidal magnetic field.
+% It is surrounded by a central calorimeter volume (green) with both electromagnetic and hadronic sections.
+% The outer layer of the central system (red) consist of a muon system.
+% In addition, two end-cap calorimeters (blue) extend the pseudorapidity coverage of the central detector.
+% The actual detector granularity and extension is defined in the detector card.
+% The detector is assumed to be strictly symmetric around the beam axis (black line).
+% Additional forward detectors are not depicted.}
+% \label{fig:GenDet}
+% \end{center}
+% \end{figure}
+Two and three-dimensional representations of the detector configuration can be used for communication purposes, as they clearly illustrate the geometric coverage of the different detector subsystems.
+As an example, the generic detector geometry assumed in this paper is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:GenDet3}
+%, \ref{fig:GenDet}
+ and~\ref{fig:GenDet2}.
+The extensions of the central tracking system, the central calorimeters and both forward calorimeters are visible.
+Note that only the geometrical coverage is depicted and that the calorimeter segmentation is not taken into account in the drawing of the detector. Moreover, both the radius and the length of each sub-detectors are just display parameters and are not relevant for the physics simulation.
+When performing an analysis, a visualisation tool is useful to convey
+information about the detector layout and the event topology in a simple way.
+The \textit{Fast and Realistic OpenGL Displayer} \textsc{FROG}~\citep{bib:FROG}
+has been interfaced in \textit{Delphes}, allowing an easy display of the defined
+detector configuration~\citep{qr:frog}.
+Two and three-dimensional representations of the detector configuration can be
+used for communication purposes, as they clearly illustrate the geometric
+coverage of the different detector subsystems.
+As an example, the generic detector geometry assumed in this paper is shown in
+Fig.~\ref{fig:GenDet3} and~\ref{fig:GenDet2}. The extensions of the central
+tracking system, the central calorimeters and both forward calorimeters are
+visible. Note that only the geometrical coverage is depicted and that the
+calorimeter segmentation is not taken into account in the drawing of the
+detector.
 \begin{figure}[!ht]
 …
 %\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Detector_DELPHES_2b}
 \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig11}
+\caption{Layout of the generic detector geometry assumed in \textit{Delphes}. Open 3D-view of the detector with solid volumes. Same colour codes as for Fig.~\ref{fig:GenDet3} are applied. Additional forward detectors are not depicted.}
+\caption{Layout of the generic detector geometry assumed in \textit{Delphes}.
+Open 3D-view of the detector with solid volumes. Same colour codes as for
+Fig.~\ref{fig:GenDet3} are applied. Additional forward detectors are not
+depicted.}
 \label{fig:GenDet2}
 \end{center}
 \end{figure}
+Deeper understanding of interesting physics processes is possible by displaying the events themselves.
+The visibility of each set of objects ($e^\pm$, $\mu^\pm$, $\tau^\pm$, jets, transverse missing energy) is enhanced by a colour coding.
+Moreover, kinematics information of each object is visible by a simple mouse action.
+As an illustration, an associated photoproduction of a $W$ boson and a $t$ quark is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wt}.
+This corresponds to a $pp(\gamma p \rightarrow Wt)pX$ process, where the $Wt$ couple is induced by an incoming photon emitted by one of the colliding proton~\citep{bib:wtphotoproduction}.
+This leading proton survives after photon emission and is present in the final state.
+As the energy and virtuality of the emitted photon are low, the surviving proton does not leave the beam and escapes from the central detector without being detected.
+The experimental signature is a lack of hadronic activity in the forward hemisphere where the surviving proton escapes.
+The $t$ quark decays into a $W$ boson and a $b$ quark.
+Both $W$ bosons decay into leptons ($W \rightarrow \mu \nu_\mu$ and $W \rightarrow e \nu_e$).
+The balance between the missing transverse energy and the charged lepton pair is clear, as well as the presence of an empty forward region. It is interesting to notice that the reconstruction algorithms build a fake $\tau$-jet around the electron.
+Deeper understanding of interesting physics processes is possible by displaying
+the events themselves. The visibility of each set of objects ($e^\pm$,
+$\mu^\pm$, $\tau^\pm$, jets, transverse missing energy) is enhanced by a colour
+coding. Moreover, kinematics information of each object is visible by a simple
+mouse action. As an illustration, an associated photoproduction of a $W$ boson
+and a $t$ quark~\citep{bib:wtphotoproduction} is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wt}.
+% This corresponds to a $pp(\gamma p \rightarrow Wt)pX$ process, where the $Wt$
+% couple is induced by an incoming photon emitted by one of the colliding
+% proton. This leading proton survives after photon emission and is present in
+% the final state. As the energy and virtuality of the emitted photon are low,
+% the surviving proton does not leave the beam and escapes from the central
+% detector without being detected. The experimental signature is a lack of
+% hadronic activity in the forward hemisphere where the surviving proton
+% escapes.
+% The $t$ quark decays into a $W$ boson and a $b$ quark. Both $W$ bosons decay
+% into leptons ($W \rightarrow \mu \nu_\mu$ and $W \rightarrow e \nu_e$). The
+% balance between the missing transverse energy and the charged lepton pair is
+% clear, as well as the presence of an empty forward region. It is interesting
+% to notice that the reconstruction algorithms build a fake $\tau$-jet around
+% the electron.
 \begin{figure}[!ht]
 …
 %%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Events_DELPHES_1}
 %\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{DisplayWt}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig12}
+\caption{Example of $pp(\gamma p \rightarrow Wt)pY$ event display in different orientations, with $t \rightarrow Wb$.
+One $W$ boson decays into a $\mu \nu_\mu$ pair and the second one into a $e \nu_e$ pair.
+The surviving proton leaves a forward hemisphere with no hadronic activity.
+The isolated muon is shown as the dark blue vector.
+Around the electron, in red, is reconstructed a fake $\tau$-jet (green vector surrounded by a blue cone), while the reconstructed missing energy (in grey) is very small. One jet is visible in one forward region, along the beamline axis, opposite to the direction of the escaping proton.}
+\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{fig12}
+\caption{Example of $pp(\gamma p \rightarrow Wt)pY$ event display in
+transverse view, with $t \rightarrow Wb$. One
+$W$ boson decays into a $\mu \nu_\mu$ pair and the second one into a $e \nu_e$
+pair. The surviving proton leaves a forward hemisphere with no hadronic
+activity. The isolated muon is shown as the dark blue vector. Around the
+electron, in red, is reconstructed a fake $\tau$-jet (blue cone surrounding a
+green arrow). The reconstructed missing energy is visible in grey. }
 \label{fig:wt}
 \end{center}
 \end{figure}
+For comparison, Fig.~\ref{fig:gg} depicts an inclusive gluon pair production $pp \rightarrow ggX$.
+The event final state contains more jets, in particular along the beam axis, which is expected as the interacting protons are destroyed by the collision. Two muon candidates and large missing transverse energy are also visible.
+For comparison, Fig.~\ref{fig:gg} depicts an inclusive gluon pair production
+$pp \rightarrow ggX$. The event final state contains more jets, in particular
+along the beam axis, which is expected as the interacting protons are destroyed
+by the collision.
 \begin{figure}[!ht]
 …
 %%\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Events_DELPHES_1}
 %\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Displayppgg}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig13}
+\caption{Example of inclusive gluon pair production $pp \rightarrow ggX$. Many jets are visible in the event, in particular along the beam axis. Two muons (in blue) are produced and the missing transverse energy is significant in this event (grey vector).}
+\includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{fig13}
+\caption{Example of inclusive gluon pair production $pp \rightarrow ggX$. Many
+jets are present in the event, in particular along the beam axis (black line).}
 \label{fig:gg}
 \end{center}
 …
 \section{Conclusion and perspectives}
+% \subsection{version 1}
+% We have described here the major features of the \textit{Delphes} framework, introduced for the fast simulation of a collider experiment.
+% It has already been used for several phenomenological studies, in particular in photon interactions at the \textsc{LHC}.
+%
+% \textit{Delphes} takes the output of event generators, in various formats, and yields analysis-object data.
+% The simulation applies the resolutions of central and forward detectors by smearing the kinematical properties of final state particles.
+% It yields tracks in a solenoidal magnetic field and calorimetric towers.
+% Realistic reconstruction algorithms are run, including the FastJet package, to produce collections of $e^\pm$, $\mu^\pm$, jets and $\tau$-jets. $b$-tag and missing transverse energy are also evaluated.
+% The output is validated by comparing to the \textsc{CMS} expected performances.
+% A trigger stage can be emulated on the output data.
+% At last, event visualisation is possible through the \textsc{FROG} 3D event display.
+%
+%
+% \textit{Delphes} has been developped using the parameters of the \textsc{CMS} experiment but can be easily extended to \textsc{ATLAS} and other non-\textsc{LHC} experiments, as at Tevatron or at the \textsc{ILC}. Further developments include a more flexible design for the subdetector assembly and possibly the implementation of an event mixing module for pile-up event simulation.
+%
+%
+% \subsection{version 2}
+We have described here the major features of the \textit{Delphes} framework, introduced for the fast simulation of a collider experiment. This framework is a tool meant for feasibility studies in phenomenology, gauging the observability of model predictions in collider experiments.
+\textit{Delphes} takes as an input the output of event-generators and yields analysis-object data in the form of \texttt{TTree} in a \texttt{*.root} file.
+The simulation includes central and forward detectors to produce realistic observables using standard reconstruction algorithms.
+We have described here the major features of the \textit{Delphes} framework,
+introduced for the fast simulation of a collider experiment. This framework is a
+tool meant for feasibility studies in phenomenology, gauging the observability
+of model predictions in collider experiments.
+\textit{Delphes} takes as an input the output of event-generators and yields
+analysis-object data in the form of \texttt{TTree} in a \texttt{*.root} file.
+The simulation includes central and forward detectors to produce realistic
+observables using standard reconstruction algorithms.
 Moreover, the framework allows trigger emulation and 3D event visualisation.
+\textit{Delphes} has been developed using the parameters of the \textsc{CMS} experiment but can be easily extended to \textsc{ATLAS} and other non-\textsc{LHC} experiments, as at Tevatron or at the \textsc{ILC}. Further developments include a more flexible design for the subdetector assembly, a better $b$-tag description and possibly the implementation of an event mixing module for pile-up event simulation. This framework has already been used for several analyses~\citep{bib:wtphotoproduction, bib:papierquisortirajamais, bib:papiersimon}, in particular in photon-induced interactions at the \textsc{LHC}.
+\textit{Delphes} has been developed using the parameters of the \textsc{CMS}
+experiment but can be easily extended to \textsc{ATLAS} and other
+non-\textsc{LHC} experiments, as at Tevatron or at the \textsc{ILC}. Further
+developments include a more flexible design for the subdetector assembly, a
+better $b$-tag description and possibly the implementation of an event mixing
+module for pile-up event simulation. This framework has already been used for
+several analyses~\citep{bib:wtphotoproduction, bib:papierquisortirajamais,
+bib:papiersimon}, in particular in photon-induced interactions at the
+\textsc{LHC}.
 …
 R. Kinnunen, A.N. Nikitenko, \textbf{CMS NOTE} \href{http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/687274}{1997/002}.
 \bibitem{bib:FROG} L. Quertenmont, V. Roberfroid, \textbf{CMS CR} \href{http://cms.cern.ch/iCMS/jsp/openfile.jsp?type=CR&year=2009&files=CR2009_028.pdf}{2009/028}, arXiv:\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2718}{0901.2718v1}[hep-ex].
+\bibitem{bib:wtphotoproduction} J. de Favereau de Jeneret, S. Ovyn, \textbf{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2008.07.040}{179-180 (2008)} \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2008.07.040}{277-284}; S. Ovyn, J. de Favereau de Jeneret, \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1393/ncb/i2008-10684-5}{Nuovo Cimento B}, arXiv:0806.4841[hep-ph].
+\bibitem{bib:wtphotoproduction} J. de Favereau de Jeneret, S. Ovyn,
+\textbf{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}
+\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2008.07.040}{179-180 (2008)}
+\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2008.07.040}{277-284}; S. Ovyn, J.
+de Favereau de Jeneret, \href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1393/ncb/i2008-10684-5}{Nuovo
+Cimento B}, arXiv:0806.4841[hep-ph].
 \bibitem{bib:papierquisortirajamais}J. de Favereau~et~al, \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2020}{arXiv:0908.2020v1} [hep-ph] (2008), to be published in EPJ.
+%\bibitem{bib:papiersimon} ``Phenomenology of a twisted two-Higgs-doublet model'', Simon de Visscher, Jean-Marc Gerard, Michel Herquet, Vincent Lema\^itre, Fabio Maltoni, to be published.
+\bibitem{bib:papiersimon} S. de Visscher,  J.M. Gerard, M. Herquet, V. Lema\^itre, F. Maltoni, arXiv:\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0705}{0904.0705}[hep-ph].
+\bibitem{bib:papiersimon} S. de Visscher,  J.M. Gerard, M. Herquet, V.
+Lema\^itre, F. Maltoni, \textbf{JHEP}
+\href{http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/042}{08 (2009) 042}.
 \bibitem{bib:mcfio} P. Lebrun, L. Garren, Copyright (c) 1994-1995 Universities Research Association, Inc.

Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.

Context Navigation

Changeset 561 in svn

Legend:

trunk/paper/CommPhysComp/notes.tex

Download in other formats: