Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Private/RefereeComments/Section_3

Timestamp:

Aug 26, 2013, 8:53:35 AM (11 years ago)

Author:

cp3-support

Comment:

--

Private/RefereeComments/Section_3

@@ +1 @@
+= Section 3 = 
+
+PAGE 6
+
+Section 3.1.1
+
+Par 1
+
+L3/4 : ”while leptonic decays can be indirectly studied from the decay
+products when processing the DELPHES output” is very vague a sentence,
+with no real meaning. Suggestion is to drop it.
+The rest of the section is extremely verbose, and could be replaced by
+one sentence stating that electron and muon energy/momentum is smeared
+with resolutions parameterized as a function of pT and eta (and mention
+that these parameterizations can be changed by the user?). The convoluted
+explanations about what a typical collider experiment is actually doing is of
+no interest for the reader, as DELPHES does not do the same anyway. This
+text could be replaced by a figure showing the resolutions used to reproduce
+the CMS and ATLAS performance for electrons and muons, as well as a
+comparison with the actual detector resolutions.
+
+Section 3.1.2
+
+Last line : ”Neutral pions are automatically classified as photons”. As al-
+ready mentioned, neutral pions are not long-lived particles in any generator.
+Instead they decay promptly to two photons, which obviously are classified
+as photons. The authors might want to drop the comments about neutral
+pions.
+
+PAGE 7
+
+Section 3.2.2
+
+L2/3: ”as these might indicate the production of heavy unstable particles”
+carries little meaning is the context of this article (and probably in a wider
+context too) without additional explanation. Suggestion is to drop it.
+
+PAGE 8
+
+Section 3.2.2
+
+Par 1:
+
+L1/2 : It is not useful to indicate what is done in real experiments. Instead,
+it is important to describe what is done in DELPHES.
+1.8.2 Section 3.1.3
+
+As a general comment, the isolation definition chosen here is very much
+hadron collider biassed. One would not do the same in e+e- collisions. This
+comment supports the initial request that the abstract includes a sentence
+stating that DELPHES is aimed at simulating hadron collider experiments
+(so far).
+
+PAGE 9
+
+”Charged pile-up subtraction”
+
+There are several problems in this paragraph.
+
+ * It is not stated if this paragraph is specific to PF or not. If it’s not, the
+procedure to remove charged particles from the event in which purely
+calorimetric jets are reconstructed needs to be spelt out clearly.
+
+ * Even if the paragraph is PF specific, it is not clear what ”subtracted
+from the event: means. For example, are the pile-up charged hadrons
+removed from the event before computing the missing transverse en-
+ergy ? To the best of my knowledge, it is not what is done in LHC
+experiments.
+
+ * The criterion ”a distance |z| > Zvtx” is obscure. What if the hard
+interaction is produced with |z| > Zvtx ? and what is the definition
+of this ”distance” ? If is is the distance between the vertex of a PU
+interaction with respect to the vertex of the hard interaction, the use of
+”z” instead of ”z” (with the proper definition in the text) is in order.
+
+”Residual pile-up subtraction”
+
+ * It is not clear how ”rho” is obtained in DELPHES
+
+ * ”mainly the jet energies and the isolation” : is ”rho” used for anything
+else ? if yes, it should be stated. If not, ”mainly” should be removed.
+
+PAGE 10
+
+Par 2:
+
+L4: It would be useful to mention one of the advantages of the PF recon-
+struction in the context of PU mitigation, namely the fact that the calorime-
+ter energy deposits associated to PU charged hadrons are ”automatically”
+removed. In DELPHES, however, this does not happen when a charged
+hadron and a neutral deposit fall in the same calorimeter tower, because the
+charged hadron is then ignored by DELPHES.
+