Abstract

Lines 1 and 2: ”the DELPHES fast-simulation framework is presented” makes the reader think that the content of the article is purely related to the software technicalities, while the paper is instead mostly about the physics content of the fast simulation - if one excepts Section 5. [See related comment about Section 5 below.]

Suggestion : Replace ”fast-simulation framework” by ”fast simulation”, and remove the second sentence, which is out of place in an Abstract.

Lines 5 to 9: The description of DELPHES in the abstract is too software oriented. The journal to which the preprint is submitted is called ”Journal of High-Energy Physics”, not ”Journal of High-Energy Software”. The ca- sual reader does not really care that the program produces ”collections”, he cares instead about the physics content of the simulation. The suggestion here would be to rephrase the end of the abstract to indicate the simulation was enhanced with new features, needed for the simulation of the LHC de- tectors in the coming period (e.g., additional pile-up interactions, which will become crucial in the coming decade, or particle-flow reconstruction, which has become a salient feature in the first years of the LHC for one of the two multi-purpose detectors), and that the program simulates ”physics objects” used for data analysis at hadron colliders such as ”jets”, ”taus”, ”missing energy”, ”electrons”, ”muons”, ”photons”, ”isolation”, ”pile-up mitigation”, etc.

It is indeed important that the concept of ”hadron collider” appears clearly in the abstract. Because the simulation is analysis-oriented, it would take a number of important modifications to make it useable for analysis of e+e- collisions, for example.