| 53 | | |
| 54 | | PAGE 9 |
| 55 | | |
| 56 | | ”Charged pile-up subtraction” |
| 57 | | |
| 58 | | There are several problems in this paragraph. |
| 59 | | |
| 60 | | * It is not stated if this paragraph is specific to PF or not. If it’s not, the |
| 61 | | procedure to remove charged particles from the event in which purely |
| 62 | | calorimetric jets are reconstructed needs to be spelt out clearly. |
| 63 | | |
| 64 | | * Even if the paragraph is PF specific, it is not clear what ”subtracted |
| 65 | | from the event: means. For example, are the pile-up charged hadrons |
| 66 | | removed from the event before computing the missing transverse en- |
| 67 | | ergy ? To the best of my knowledge, it is not what is done in LHC |
| 68 | | experiments. |
| 69 | | |
| 70 | | * The criterion ”a distance |z| > Zvtx” is obscure. What if the hard |
| 71 | | interaction is produced with |z| > Zvtx ? and what is the definition |
| 72 | | of this ”distance” ? If is is the distance between the vertex of a PU |
| 73 | | interaction with respect to the vertex of the hard interaction, the use of |
| 74 | | ”z” instead of ”z” (with the proper definition in the text) is in order. |
| 75 | | |
| 76 | | ”Residual pile-up subtraction” |
| 77 | | |
| 78 | | * It is not clear how ”rho” is obtained in DELPHES |
| 79 | | |
| 80 | | * ”mainly the jet energies and the isolation” : is ”rho” used for anything |
| 81 | | else ? if yes, it should be stated. If not, ”mainly” should be removed. |
| 82 | | |
| 83 | | PAGE 10 |
| 84 | | |
| 85 | | Par 2: |
| 86 | | |
| 87 | | L4: It would be useful to mention one of the advantages of the PF recon- |
| 88 | | struction in the context of PU mitigation, namely the fact that the calorime- |
| 89 | | ter energy deposits associated to PU charged hadrons are ”automatically” |
| 90 | | removed. In DELPHES, however, this does not happen when a charged |
| 91 | | hadron and a neutral deposit fall in the same calorimeter tower, because the |
| 92 | | charged hadron is then ignored by DELPHES. |
| 93 | | |
