Changes between Version 6 and Version 7 of Private/RefereeComments/Section_6

Timestamp:

Oct 5, 2013, 10:35:42 AM (11 years ago)

Author:

Michele Selvaggi

Comment:

--

Private/RefereeComments/Section_6

@@ -62 +62 @@
 
 >>> addressed. However, the referee, as well as the LHC experiments, should be aware that any study performed with Delphes should be understood as preliminary. A Delphes based study should be perfomed after a pure parton-level and before 
->>> a geant based fast or  full-simulation study. As a result, the authors are perfectly happy with an agreement with a few percents in the physics object resolutions. 
+>>> a geant based fast or  full-simulation study. As a result, the authors are perfectly happy with an agreement with a few percents discrepancy in the physics object resolutions. 
 
 == Section 6.3 ==
@@ -72 +72 @@
 it would be nice to have an illustration of their performance here.
 
+>>> addressed. Added a sentence at the beginning of the paragraph stating that only the fake MET is done with pile-up.
+
+>>> what do we say here? 
+>>> (michele suggested answer)
+
+>>> We don't want to create to much imbalance between CMS and ATLAS (the only exception is electrons, but we did not find the relevant plot for ATLAS), 
+>>> so we have decided to produce a real MET validation plot for CMS and and the fake validation for ATLAS. This choice was simply driven by the fact that the real MET
+>>> validation plot was not found in the ATLAS. In addition, pile-up mitigation for MET has not been addressed in this note, since it is not done. 
+>>> As a matter of fact PU mitigation on the MET relies on complex multi-variate algorithms 
+>>> in CMS which are out of scope in Delphes. The only advantage in using the energy-flow particle instead of calorimeter tower for computing MET in the presence of pile-up
+>>> is the superior resolution of track in comparison to towers. PU tracks cannot simply be removed (in contrast to what is done for jets).
+  
 PAGE 16