Dear Florencia, here is my first part of the comments up to the end of chapter 5. I'll try to send you the rest ASAP. Pedro ****************************************************************** *** p2 *** Author list: Guisseppe Latino, "XXX University" ? for consistency: "Pedro A. Movilla Fernandez" *** p3,4 *** There is some inconsistency in the capitalization of the section titles. (e.g. 7.2.1 vs 7.2.2, and many more) *** p6 *** l24 "substract" l34,35 repitition of "these" l36 "...four-momentum of THE jet" *** p7 *** l27 omit ", i.e." l27,l29 and subsequently: often repitition of "this" *** p9 *** l4 better: "...beam pipe, \theta is the polar..." l6 "... as p sin \theta, where..." l15 better: "Outside of the silicon detector, the Central Outer Tracker (COT) is installed, which is a 3.1 m long ..." l23 "..is used.." -> "..is installed.." l24 "..measurement of THE electromagnetic and THE hadronic energy deposition, which is described in detail in Sec. 2.1." l25 "Each calorimeter..." CDF has just ONE calorimeter with different parts / compartments. Better: "The central and the plug part of the calorimeter have their own shower profile detectorr positioned at the expected shower maxima, ..." l28 "..the inner face..." that is not true. The CES/PES are located somewhere within one of the EM sampling layers. *** p10 *** l1 Again "five calorimeters" (see above), better: "five calorimeter compartments" l1-3 better: " ...CEM [11], the central hadronic, CHA [12], the plug electromagnetic, PEM [13], the plug hadronic, PHA [13], and the wall hadronic calorimeter, WHA [12], in the region ..." l8 skip "...of material." at the end. *** p11 *** l14 "..for Run-II data taking period since Oct 2000 ..." later you explain Run-I data taking period so you have to be consistent. l17 Skip the quotation marks for Run-I. l22-23 Better: "The ratio of the measured calorimeter energies and the track momenta for electron candidates, E/p, is used ..." l24-27 Somehow repetitive construction, better: "...for each tower. These corrections improve the resolution of the energy measurement but shift the absolute energy scale by only 0.2%." l31 "...response to charged pions..." l30-33 Better: "... the initial energy scale is defined by their responses to a charged pion test beam of 57GeV/c (see Sec. ... ) using pions with almost no interaction in the respective electromagnetic compartments CEM and PEM, respectively, enforced by an upper cut-off to the shower energies observed therein. l33 "...total energy ... a simple sum..." -> "the total raw energy ...is given by the sum of..." *** p12 *** l5 no quotation marks for "aging" l9 omit commas around E_T l11 "energy scale...corrected..." may be misleading since there is no correction procedure for this (like for jets). Better: "The energy scale decreases by 3% every 6 months which is taken care of by frequently adjusting the calibration." (that is my understanding) l15, l21 "corrected" -> "calibrated" or "recalibrated" l22 better: "The calibration stability is verified using the time (run?) dependence of the reconstruced invariant Z boson mass." l25 "correspond to the data taking period April ..." l31 "...it is thus 0.5%..." *** p13 *** Fig.3, caption text 2nd line "..$p_T<20$..." If there is a problem with latex "<" use \ensuremath{} *** p14 *** l15 "Snowmass Accord" in quotation marks, plus reference? Or skip it? l23 "...interaction, and N_tow is the..." l24 Do you mean: "This procedure is repeated iteratively, starting with the list of towers covered by current cone, thus giving a new tower list and center." You explain in detail the algorithm but you don't explain how the interation starts (seed tower, energy sorted list) l25 "...is being recalculated..." *** p15 *** l16 "In the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation,..." You need to define the abbrevation when you use it first time. footnote: skip "with status code set to 1" *** p16 *** l17,18 etc. again often repitition of "these" l19 The COT is not confined to |eta|<1.0. Probably you mean: "...confined to the region in the COT where particles can traverse all available layers, that is..." l21 Better: "...with transverse energy E_T^{jet} > 20, 50, 70 and 100 GeV, referred to as jet-20, jet-50, jet-70 and jet-100, respectively." l24: Do we need the prescale details here? If so, why not also for other data samples? Perhaps I miss something here. l31-33 Better: "...inclusive electron (e) or muon (\mu) trigger with E_T^e > 18 GeV and p_T^\mu > 18 GeV/c, respectively." *** p17 *** l3,4 Better: "...mass of electrons and muons to be between 76 and 106 GeV/c^2." l9 "...3.0 and 3.2 GeV/c^2..." l10 "Corresponding MC samples were generated for all processes based on Pythia 6.2 [22] and Herwig 6.3 [23] with CTEQ5L parton distribution functions [25]." l14,23 "thresholds of" -> "thresholds for" ? l17,l20 If you describe the purpose of the single-particle samples then you also have to describe the purpose of the minbias samples: "Minbias samples were used for the tuning of the calorimeter simulation". Alternatively skip lines 20-21. l34 "...tuned TO e+e- data..." A reference might be useful if you have one. *** p18 *** l2 "JIMMY": keep font style for generators consistently in roman, as you did for Pythia, Herwig. *** p19 *** l2 "CDF calorimeters" -> "CDF calorimeter" l3 Better: "A parameterized shower simulation is used with the simulation parameters tuned to describe..." l4 More precisely: "single isolated charged particles" l5 Better: "...using test beam data as well as minimum bias and single track trigger data from Run-II." (be specific here because later you are also specific for em showers) l5 "The simulation parameters are adjusted to model the response at all momenta." is misleading. The tuning based on minbias data is restricted to p<5GeV/c, and then there are certain test beam points, abut there are still gaps which were not subject of any tuning in the past. Perhaps skip the sentence since you anyway repeat information from line 3, and reflect about momentum regions later. l6 better: "Similarly, the tuning of the em shower is based on electrons observed in J/Psi->e+e- and Z->e+e- decays." l8-10 style suggestion: "In the following, we first describe..., then we discuss..., and finally we assign..." l11 Skip "Calorimeter". l13 "The CDF detector simulation..." l14 "...through the detector and TO simulate ..." l16 Better: "...the particles are passed..." l24 "Both electromagnetic and..." l25 Better: "...of energy E_dp deposited by..." l29 "...radial distance r from the impact point..." l30-32 Better: "The parameterization takes dependencies on the incident particle energy and shower fluctuations into account and further considers the repetitive sampling structure of the sensitive detector volume." *** p20 *** l1 Better: "The hadronic showers in Gflash are calculated as a superposition of three shower classes:" l3-7 "Purely hadronic showers (h)..." and put also f,l,em likewise in brackets. l7 "Showers from...stage of the hadronic inelastic process (l)." l3-14. I would explain the units in which the shower propagate (lambda0, X0) after you introduce the quantity z of Eq. (14). l15 "...units of radiation lengths, X0." is only true for em. l2-10 If you follow my suggestion above and reflect about radiation/absorption lengths as well as the symbols h,f,l,em after Eq. 14, then you don't need the lengthy introduction lines 2-10 anymore. Actually I find the more compact structure of the 1st draft version, page 20 better. So why changing it? l16 Better: "...are Gaussians parameterized as a..." l23 "Eq. (14)" l25,26 Better: "The factor f_dp is the fraction of deposited energy with respect..." l28 Skip brackets. l32 Better: "...pi0 is produced in later interactions." *** p21 *** l1-5 There is some redundancy here, better: "In total, the longitudinal hadronic shower development depends on 18 parameters: the mean and the width of alpha and beta for each of the three shower classes, and the fractions f_dp, f_pi0 and f_pi0^l." l10 "where r is the radial distance from the particle impact point. R_0 is a free parameter in units..." (skip "the") l13 "function of shower energy and depth z..." -> "function of the incident particle energy and the shower depth z, the latter taken in units of ..." l17-21 Style suggestion to compactify the text: "The z-evolution of the lateral spreading is linear for hadronic showers (n=1) and quadratic for electromagnetic showers (n=2). The electromagnetic and hadronic lateral profile are determined by their own set of adjustable R_i and S_i values, thus giving a total of 14 parameters." l23-28 All that stuff doesn't belong here, and it partially repeats things already said in Sec. 5.1.. You can reflect about energy spots and crack corrections etc. at the end of Sec. 5.1.1, page 19. Let Sec. 5.1.4 start with line 29. l29 "...isolated single track data..." l30-31 "...not all of the 34 parameters decribed above were tuned to CDF data." (I guess that the reader's short-term memory is good enough that we don't need a repitition here.). And you have to add something like: "Furthermore, the current tuning of various parameters based on CDF data is restricted to relatively low particle momenta below 2.5GeV/c." l31,32 "For the remaining parameters and momentum regions we use the default setting from THE H1 collaboration." l33 "...tuned to CDF data are:" *** p22 *** l4 "characterize" l4 "The lateral profile parameters R1, R2, and R3 and ?? ." (be specific here as you are specific with the other parameters) l6 Actually the relative sampling fractions are two additional parameters that you didn't mention in Sec. 5.1.2. Then you have a total of 18+14+2=34 parameters. l15-17 That paragraph should be merged with end of Sec. 5.1.4, between l6 and 7. Furthermore, from discussions with Soon I learned that in the past Gflash was tuned to CDF minbias data up to 2.5GeV/c (for the lateral profile the tune values were used up to 5GeV). To my knowledge, single track trigger data were not used for this purpose, but to be sure you should ask Soon. For studies and verification of the tuning single track trigger data collected later were used up to 20GeV/c (BTW looking at Dave's plots I doubt that the lower limit mentioned in the text is 3GeV/c) l19 Better(?): "...tracking coverage (and efficiency?) in both the online trigger system as well as in the offline event analysis." Is that what you mean? The way you use "offline" is slang. l23 Indeed we are NOW using tracks extrapolated to the CES and PES. But very recently Soon told me that in the past tuning iteration and calorimeter response analyses tracks were extrapolated to the calorimeter surfaces (in agreement with what you wrote in the previous draft version). For the NIM paper this detail is not such important, but to be correct I would let the sentence begin with "In the ongoing studies, tracks are selected..." or so. l25 Skip "central". l26 Better: "Tracks are required to point to the inner 0.9x0.9 contour of the target tower in order to stay away from the tower edges, otherwise they are not considered." l28 I would skip the trivial first sentence. l29 The sentence is correct but it is somehow difficult for the reader to get the point. Suggestion: "From the eight towers surrounding the target tower, the measurement of the CEM energy uses a 2x2 subset containing the target tower and those three adjacent towers closest to the track impact point." *** p23 *** l4 Background w/o quotation marks. l5 Skip "to be extrapolated". l13,14 Better(?): "The background is estimated using the energy deposited in the same eta range but within the towers along the edge in phi of a 5x5 tower group around the target tower, using those edge which is more distant from the track impact point, see Fig. 4.". Skip "event by event". l16 Skip trivial part after ", i.e. for..." and join with next sentence "...and then subtracted from the energy measured in the signal region." l19-21 Skip these two last sentences, you repeat it later when discussing the plots. *** p24 *** l1 "5.2.2 Central Calorimeter" l5 Better: "For particle momenta increasing from 0.5 to 20 GeV/c, the fraction of energy deposited in the CEM drops from 40% to 25%$, whereas the fraction in the CHA rises from 20 to 55%". l8 Since the agreement is not perfect, add "In general, the mean agrees well..." You have to comment on the discrepancies at the lowest momentum bin and around 4-7 GeV/c. Later you use these plots the estimate of absolute corrections uncertainties, so you should not completely ignore the problematic bins. For the lowest momentum bin I am pretty sure that it has to do with the sharp cutoff in the MC generation (p>0.5GeV) that is by nature not present in the data. Both data and MC have of course an analysis cut at 0.5 GeV.c but if the real data track has 0.2 GeV/c but is reconstructed at 0.55 GeV/c then this leads to a systematically lower E/p (that effect is not present in the MC). For this reason the MC underestimates the data for p<1GeV/c. A similar effect might also contribute to the deviation at 4-7GeV/c due to trigger thresholds, but I am not sure. So you can add e.g.: "The deviations observed are probably related to differences in the particle spectrum between data and MC caused by momentum cutoffs in the MC and trigger thresholds in the data." Since you can see that the MC underestimates the data systematically at high p you should emphasize here that CDF data only in the low momentum region were usable for tuning. *** p25 *** The two statements p24 l10 & p25 l1 are somehow misleading. My suggestion: p24 l10 Replace this sentence by "For the tuning in the past, only minimum bias events with a sufficient number of single isolated tracks up to 5GeV/c were available." p25 l1 "Thus we are still relying on test beam data in the momentum range 7-227 GeV/c to optimize the simulated particle response at high momenta." Then you add: "With the new CDF data available recently, we significantly increased the single track trigger statistics up to 20 GeV/c but still need test beam data for higher momenta." l4 "...are divided..." l12-14 Style suggestion: "Fig. 7 shows a summary plot with the absolute total response for both CDF and test beam data together with the Monte Carlo expectation." (you have defined "total" previously) l14 "The CDF measurements (in-situ) are based on minimum bias and single track TRIGGER data." l16 Skip "Simulation measurements are also shown." l17 "Note that, differently from the in-situ measurement, the test beam was shot to the tower center, which is estimated to cause about a 5% higher response." l20 I am not sure if this is true. Tower 3 was used but NOT as a single tower but several tower 3 arranged in a block of 3x3 or so. Soon should know, and I'll try to verify this. l22 Use {\it in-situ} consistently. l24 "Plug Calorimeters" -> "Plug Calorimeter" l25 "calorimeter" l27 Last time I made a language style comment on this sentence but I think the actual statement is wrong. A 1x2 group and not a 2x2 group is combined to one tower. For certain eta we have 48 towers in phi which are paired to 24 towers. But there is no such pairing in eta. *** p26 *** Fig.6: You need to mention in the caption that the MC are normalized the the data. Furthermore, the legend should be placed within one of the plots (I almost overlooked it). l4 Better: "The triggers dedicated to collect high momentum tracks are limited..." (the expression "trigger for high momentum tuning" doesn't make sense) l5 More precise: "Thus, most studies in the past relied on minimum bias data providing only a few tracks with momenta beyond 5GeV/c." Then you have to resolve the contradiction between Fig.8 and the previous statement. Suggestion: "Recently, new single track trigger samples with higher momentum thresholds became available, providing also high momentum tracks in the plug region as a byproduct." *** p27 *** l1 Some supporting information for the reader: "The momentum resolution for tracks pointing to the plug part is poorer than in the central region because the track reconstruction is mostly based on the Silicon Vertex Detector." l3-5 "central region of the plug"? Be more precisely: "However, this problem can be minimized by using tracks with partial coverage by the COT. Tracks with combined COT and silicon hits are available up to |eta|~1.8." *** p28 *** l1-2: To my knowledge also CDF data were used in the plug for certain parameters (sampling fractions, f_dp). Can you ask Soon? Therefore I would write "...achieved as yet based mostly on test beam data. Only a few parameters such as the relative sampling fractions were also optimized using CDF minimum bias data." Please skip "plug simulation shown here." because the reader will confusingly conclude that the plots shown in the same page are test beam data. l4 Clearer: "A CDF measurement of the single particle response in the plug using combined COT and Silicon tracks is shown in Fig. 8 for single track trigger data and minimum bias simulation." l7 "...deviations up to about 13%..." l7-9 I would not say that is "not surprising". I suggest to make a neutral comment on that observation like: "Note that for the tuning relevant for this paper the data at the medium momentum range were not available. Ongoing simulation studies are aiming at reducing the discrepancies between data and MC observed at p=5 to 10 GeV/c." Thus you leave it open whether that discrepancy is really releated to a mistuning of the plug simulation. BTW: I am meanwhile thinking that the excess of the MC over the data in the plug at 5-10 GeV/c might be of the same nature as the excess in the central at 5-7 GeV/c (Fig.5). It has probably to do with trigger threshold effects (present in the data but not in the MC) that translate in a certain way to the plug. l10 "calibrate" -> "correct" l9-10: "To minimize..." Put that statement at the end paragraph of section 5.2.3. *** p29 *** l1 It is single track trigger data and minbias MC. l1 Suggestion: "Fig.9 shows the total response obtained from both the CDF detector and the test beam measurements compared with the corresponding simulations." l3-6 Skip the last sentence "The discrepancy ...data and MC.", you repeat what you said just 2-3 sentences before. (If you want to keep it, correct "further further"). l7-12 You repeat l9-10 of page 28. I suggest keep this paragraph but to skip l9-10 of page 28. l16,17 Better: "...is therefore important. The electromagnetic single particle response is studied similarly to the hadronic response using the track momentum as reference and EM energies measured in 2x2 tower blocks around the track impact point." (For consistency you have to be precise because you were precise on page 22/23.) I am not sure about the 2x2 topology but will ask Geumbong. l18-20 Style: "The response for electrons and positrons from the decays W->... and J/Psi->... is shown in Fig. 10. Overlaid is the simulated response from corresponding MC samples." l21 No new paragraph, and continue: "A certain momentum dependence ..." l23 Skip repitition ", as seen in Fig. 10" l25 Better: "The differences between the measured and the simulated single particle responses shown in Fig. 11 are used to estimate..." l27-29 Looking at the plot, your statement "...differences are less than..." is wrong. It is perhaps better to write: " "We have derived the following momentum dependend estimates for the average differences: * 1.5% for p<12 GeV/c * 2.5% for 1220GeV/c [then, in a new paragraph follows discussion about the sources of the uncertainties] "The uncertainties at p<20 GeV/c directly reflect the limited performance of the calorimeter simulation as well as limited available single isolated track statistics at medium momenta. The uncertainties at p>20 GeV/c are due to uncertainties in the test beam momentum scale (2%), the shorter integration time in the CDF detector readout compared to the test beam measurement (1.5%), and limitations in monitoring the test beam calibrations over the past 20 years using source calibrations , (see [17,18] and Sec.2)." (skip details like "120ns") *** p30 *** Fig. 9: As mentioned above, the legend is wrong if you have used the data from my analysis. I used single track trigger data and Minbias events. Caption, last sentence, better: "Test beam points have been shifted..."" BTW, you didn't do this shifting in Fig.7, but it would be nice to have consistent style. Furthermore I recommend to combine the CDF and test beam points into one plot. *** p31 *** Fig. 10, caption: "...for electrons and positrons from J/Psi ->..." *** p32 *** l1 Better: "The measurements presented so far..." l2 Better: "A particular reason for this limitation is the instrumentation between the tower \phi boundaries which is difficult to simulate properly." l3-6 Skip quotation marks for "relative phi". "bwtween". Suggestion: "Fig.12 shows versus relative phi (phi_rel), that is the azimuthal angle of the track impact point w.r.t. the target tower center, normalized to the phi of the tower edges such that phi=0 represents the tower center and phi=+-1 the tower boundaries. Shown are data and simulation for p=3-5GeV/c and p=12-16 GeV/c." l7 "phi" -> "$\phi$" l7-8 Where do you show a eta_rel plot? If you include this plot: "Also shown is the dependence versus eta_rel, the pseudorapidity normalized analogously to phi_rel." l9 "10% is taken as systematic uncertainty." l10-12 Avoid too much repitition. "...tower area, the 10% uncertainty at the boundaries translate to 1.9% uncertainty on the overall ..." l13 EM particles is misleading, EM stands for a calorimeter compartment of the CDF detector that is also sensitive to hadronic showers. Better: "Fig.13 shows the differences of the electromagnetic responses between data and simulation." l15-17 Sentence is somehow redundant, better: "This measurement only uses tracks pointing to the inner 84% of the tower in azimuth phi, as a consequence of the electron selection that involves a CES energy cluster fiducial cut." l26 "Fig.14..." l27 Avoid repitition, better: "A discrepancy of about 10% is observed for phi_rel..." l33 "...is thus 2% for p<12GeV/c, 3% for ..." l34-36 Revising my previous comment I suggest: "The total systematic uncertainty on the energy of electromagnetically showering..."" *** p33 *** Fig.12: The inset "12 versus relative phi for electrons...." and skip 2nd sentence. If you want to keep the detail, say "...based on pure track analysis, and the other electron is identified using track and calorimeter information." (Is that what you mean?) ************************************************************************** ....to be continued..... From: PMFernandez@lbl.gov Subject: Comments on JES NIM version 2 (3) Date: September 28, 2005 2:31:08 AM CDT To: canelli@fnal.gov Cc: beate@fnal.gov, tommaso.dorigo@pd.infn.it, hatake@fnal.gov, ABGaltieri@lbl.gov, and 2 more... Reply-To: PMFernandez@lbl.gov Dear Florenica et al., here is part three of my comments up to the end of the draft. I found a couple of errors and inconsistencies in the text and figure captions, and various passages need improvement in language style because they are misleading or difficult to understand or too stiff or too sloppy. I am not Native English but hope that my suggestions are usable. Best, Pedro ********************************************************************** *** p53 *** l5 Should be "depend linearly on". l7 Replace the "~" by "about". l11 Skip repitition "from the hard interaction". l14 Should be "The number of vertices...". l15 Better: "Vertices are reconstructed using the intersections of the tracks with the beam line." l16 "Fig.26" Skip "the distributions of" l18 "z-vertices" -> "vertices" l18,19 Skip repitition "in Fig. 26 versus instantaneous luminosity". l21 "correlation" -> "extrapolation" No quotation marks around "fake". l23 "vertex finding" l23,24 Better: "...depends on the track multiplicity. It is about ..." l25 "measured" -> "determined" (to avoid later repitition). Better: "...and verified using the fraction of W->e nu data events whose vertex is within 5cm of ..." l28 "The extra average..." l28,29 "...using data collected with mininum bias data samples"? -> "...using minimum bias data samples." l29-32 We don't need to introduce the formula and the variable names because you are not referring to it later. Suggestion: "The cone is defined using a seed tower randomly selected in the central calorimeter region 0.2<|eta| < 0.6." l33 "as a function of" l34 Skip "for three cone sizes" to avoid later repitition. l34-35 Too many repititions. Better: "It represents the extra transverse energy from the additional interactions." You can actually skip this sentence because of repitition on page 54, line 2-3, which is clear enough. l35 "Fig. 27" *** p54 *** Fig. 26: Better: "Instantaneous luminosity in W->e nu events measured up to August 2004". l4,5 Better: "... than zero as a consequence of the finite vertex finding efficiency." (don't need to repeat "minbias" and "80%" mentioned just one paragraph before") l5,6 I don't understand this sentence, need to rewrite. "vertex measured" -> "vertices measured" Table 3, caption: "Intercepts and slopes of the multiple interaction correction for three cone sizes." *** p55 *** Fig. 27: 1. We don't need the inset with the fit parameters. 2. We can easily merge the three plots into one (the draft is anyway very long and has many plots) 3. y-axis titles: " (GeV)" and write "R=0.x" as inset in the plots (when plots are merged you can place the text nearby the corrsponding line) 4. "z-vertices" -> "vertices" 5. "" -> "" l2 Skip redundant first sentence. l7 Better: "...is repeated using W->emu and four-jet samples with jet E_T thresholds ...." ** p56 ** l1 Better: "The resulting slopes differ by up to 10% from the slopes obtained using minimum bias data. The latter is taken as central value." l3 No quotation marks around "fake". l4 Skip repitition ", .i.e. vertices ...took place." l5 "Fig.??" -> "Fig. 27" l5,6 Better: "...in Fig. 27 as a deviation of the data points from linearity at high number of vertices. The fake rate..." l7 Skip "primary". l7,8 Suggestion: "...event topology because a higher number of tracks, for example, can confuse the track and vertex finding." (I guess "vertexing" is slang.) l9,10 Better: "The impact of the fake rate is also tested using samples in different bins of instantaneous luminosities, as shown in Fog. 28." l13 Better: "...excluded, which is taken..." Fig. 28 1. y axis title: "E_T^R=0.7 (GeV)" -> " (GeV)" and write cone size information in the plot. 2. Caption, better: "Slope parameter of the multiple interaction correction for R=0.7 versus instantaneous luminosity in W->e nu and minimum bias events as well as in four-jet events with jet E_T threshold of 100 GeV." 3. Move figure to top of the page. l14-17: Better: "Adding the individual contributions in quadrature we obtain a total systematic uncertainty of the multiple interaction correction of 15%, which we assign to all cone sizes, corresponding to ...." Don't understand "on the uncorrected jet energy" - skip it? *** p57 *** l7 "A parton energy..." -> "A fraction of parton energy..." or simply "Parton energy..." (I misread last time and made a unnecessary comment here - sorry) l8 "large angle final state QCD radiation" probably to complex construction, better: "final state gluon radiation (FSR) at large angle w.r.t. the parent parton..." (is also more precise) l9 Bending effects caused by the magnetic field are not relevant anymore after the absolute corrections. Absolute corrections map tower energies to particle energies) and correct for any detector effects that causes losses, like particles escaping from the tower calorimeter cone due to bending, multiple scattering, etc. There is no magnetic field at particle level, OOC and UE corrections deal with pure physics effects. If you agree I would suggest to skip everything after "fragmentation process". Otherwise you should better write: "...fragmentation process or due to low pT particles escaping from the calorimeter jet cone because of their trajectories have a large curvature within the magnetic field." l11 Better: "...can also have contributions not related to the actual mother partons of the hard interaction of interest defining the jet, such as particles from initial state gluon radiation (ISR), or particles from spectator partons with color connection to the other partons of the proton ('beam-beam-remnant', BBR)." l15 "Finale state radiation..." l16,17 If you speak of "effects" that "are expected to decrease", what does "per unit area" then mean? Just skip "per unit area in eta-phi space". l18 "uncorrelated with" l22 "eta^jet" -> "eta_jet" to be consistent with resr of the text and figure labels l23 "out-of-cone" -> "OOC" "...assuming that any eta-dependence of the OOC energy..." l24 For a normal reader "MC simulation" means EVERYTHING from particle generation up to detector simulation. For this reason, "independent of the CDF detector" is a contradiction, (CDF people are the only people I know of that seem to have that strange agreement that "MC simulation" just means "particle generation" although the detector simulation is also full of MC methods). So I suggest to write "...MC simulation at particle generator level independent of the CDF detector." l25-28 Too long and awkward construction with unnecessary repititions. Suggestion: "The systematic uncertainty of the OOC and UE correction is derived from comparisons of the energy measured in calorimeter towers in certain annuli around the jet cone with the simulation based on Pythia and Herwig." And join with previous paragraph. l30 Better: "The OOC and UE corrections are obtained from Pythia dijet samples using particle jets which match a primary parton within R=0.4." l33 "Fig. 29" l34 Skip repitition "in the dijet sample." l35 "Fig. 30" You haven't defined the OOC correction. "The OOC correction pT^parton/pT^particle is shown..." *** p58 *** Fig. 29: "Normalized distributions of pT^parton - ..." *** p59 *** Fig. 30, caption, better: "OOC correction versus pT^particle..." l8 Last time I suggested to skip the first sentence of Sec. 9.2.1 of the previous draft because I misread that you are using di-jet samples for the determination of uncertainties, instead of photon+jets samples. Indeed it is better to start this section with: "We determine the systematic OOC energy using gamma-jet samples instead of di-jet events." which avoids repitition of sentence structure in previous page and stresses that we switch to another sample. l8 Skip "pT(r1-r2)" because you introduce the equation on next page by ", that is". *** p60 *** For consistency reasons the equation needs a number. l2 "Fig.31" Due to my comment above, skip "in gamma+jet events." Fig. 31: In my opinion the legend text is placed suboptimal. Caption text, better: "Normalized distributions of the momentum in different annuli outside the jet cone..." l4 "among" -> "between" l5 "Fig.??" -> "Fig. 32" l5,6 Here the external reader is confused by what "fully corrected ... represented by the photon" means. Suggestion "...OOC energy. The reference energy scale of the correction is set to the photon energy which serves as an estimator of the corrected jet energy, i.e. the underlying true parton energy, assuming photon-jet transverse momentum balance. Fig.32 shows the difference as a function of $p_T^corr \equiv p_T^\gamma$." l8,9 "...Pythia or Herwig, dependent on p_T^corr..." is misleading Better: " ...Pythia and Herwig, and is parameterized as a function of pT^corr but independent on the jet cone size." l11 typo, should be "1.35" l12,13 Better: "...by comparing the particle and thecalorimeter energy inside the respective annuli around the jet cone." l14-18 Style suggestion: "By considering alternative generators various modeling uncertainties contributing to the systematic error are taken into account. Herwig and Pythia have very different BBR contributions. Furthermore they differ in the modeling of QCD radiation and fragmentation." *** p61 *** Fig 32, caption text: "Systematic uncertainties of the OOC corrections ..." The x axis labels are too small. The plot differs from what was shown in the first draft. Now it seems that the smooth dashed curve overestimates the OOC uncertainties. Or does the curve show the total OOC+UE uncertainty? Curve needs explanation. 9.2.2 line 3,4 Skip "(Pythia Tune A)" but keep the reference. Is this technical term of particular importance? This tune was also used for all other plots shown in the draft, right? line 4: Awkward sentence, better: "The UE uncertainties are derived from comparisons of the underlying event in data, Pythia and Herwig dijet samples [34]. line 6 "charged tracks" -> "tracks" or "charged particles" line 7: I looked again in Rick's note and realized that my previous comment for the first draft is not correct. The transverse region is simply defined by the azimuth angle range that you have described. So skip my sentence "The projection of this region in the r-phi plane...transverse region" and let the sentence before end like "...Delta Phi(jet,track)<120deg, which is referred to as 'transverse region'.". and the continue: "It is mostly sensitive to ISR and multiple parton interactions." (next page) What about Ref [34] in your previous draft? *** p62 *** unnumbered line 3: "Fig.33" "charged tracks" -> "tracks" Better: "Fig. 33 shows the average momenta of tracks in the transverse region versus the leading jet E_T. The data agree..." and skip the trivial equation because there is nothing mysterious of the calculation of that average. l2,3 Better "...within 30% for all ET." (avoids rep. of value) l3-7 "absolute estimate" doesn't make sense + too confusing listing of numbers. Better: "To get an estimate of the absolute UE uncertainty we use the ..., as shown in Fig.27. The numbers are 0.4GeV, 1.1 GeV and 2.2 GeV for the jet cone sizes 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0, respectively, which translate to UE uncertainties of 0.11GeV, 0.32GeV, and 0.66 GeV." l8 "<\sigma p_T>" -> "average transverse momenta" Fig. 33, caption text, better: "The average transverse momentum of charged particles in the transverse region .... "PYTHIA" -> "Pythia" "ISAJET" -> "Isajet" Plot style: - One quick improvement can be achieved if you cut away the black ugly frame and the inset "Transverse PTsum versus PT(charged jet#1)". You can delete the lines in the PS file, or manipulate the jpg file or using the crop function of xv or gimp. - A little more complicate modification: Axis titles: "charged jet"? Can you overlay something like "$p_T(leading jet) (GeV/c)$" Cut the y axis title and place a horizontal text over the plot that says: "Charged particle $p_T$ average in transverse region (GeV)" l3 Since you show Isajet you need a reference. After the sentence in line 3 you can insert something like: "...uncertainty. As a further cross check, Fig. 33 shows also the corresponding transverse momentum spectrum simulated by Isajet [ref] which has an alternate hadronization model. To get an ..." (If there is some UE specific thing in Isajet that you know of, you can briefly mention it here.) l10 "...systematic uncertainty OF..." l12 Better: "It can be further improved by a more detailed comparison of data and simulation, thus leading to a better understanding of the physics effects, or IF improved versions of the MC generators become available." (skip trivial statement following thereafter) *** p63 ** l3 Skip ":Energy that falls outside..." l4 "refers to only" -> "refers only to" l5 "In Pythia MC samples" "additional 0.5 GeV of energy" -> "additional energy of 0.5 GeV" l6,7 Better: "...and refer to it as 'splash-out' uncertainty" *** p64 *** l1 I suggest to replace the vague title by something like "Validation of the Jet Energy Scale Determination" l3 I believe that in this context "section" must not be capitalized. l4,5 Be precise: "...are applied to dijet, gamma-jet and Z-jet events..." l9 "The photon energy p_T^gamma..." l11 Skip ":", or convert formula in next line to an equation For the following sections and figures it would be very useful to define the term *photon-jet balance*, so I suggest to replace this sentence by: "At tree level the {\it photon jet balance} pT_jet/pT^gamma-1 should be zero." l15 "extent to which data agree" ? better: "...any disagreement between data and MC accounts for" l16 "differences" -> "uncertainties" l17 Skip "Isolated" at this point (comes later). Furthermore, can you give a qualitative argument why you use these cut values? l18 Skip "hard". "Jets ...are ... background"? Suggestion: "pi0 and eta produced in the fragmentation can decay into photons which constitute a significant background." l20 "extra transverse energy" l22 Skip vague expressions like "tight". "THE number of clusters" l24 Skip the null statement "a statistical method", better: "The background estimate is based on the number of hits in the CPR detector [31]." l26 Skip "using this statistical method". Skip "for both to" "result" -> "results" l27 Better "However, the agreement strongly depends..." l29,30 Avoid repitition, better: "Further cuts are applied to reduce possible contributions from gluon radiation, thus minimizing the imbalance between the leading jet and the photon:" l31 "should be" -> "are requuried to be" l33 "The event has exactly one jet with p_T >..." To be consistent with the style you use to describe the Z-jet sample selection on page 68, I suggest to write l31-l33 as normal text and not as itemization (which just blows up the text) *** p65 *** I am not sure if you have explained what "pile-up" means. l3,4 Skip the sentence "We can verify...this sample." Just 2 sentences later you repeat exactly the same. l7 Better: "...is not expected to be zero at this stage of the correction procedure." Fig.34, caption text: "squared circles" is funny :-) -> "open circles" "black circles" -> "full circles" skip "blue" l9 "Figure 36" -> "Fig. 35" l9-12 More compact: "Fig 35. shows the resulting p_T balance for data, Pythia and Herwig for R=0.4. For comparison, also the pT balance calculated using particles at generator level without detector simulation is overlaid". (Again, as mentioned above, the reader simply doesn't know what you mean with "MC". Furthermore you use here and in the following the expression "calorimeter jet" for a jet after absolute correction, but it is actually a "particle jet" according to the nomenclature of the previous chapters. And a "calorimeter jet" was an uncorrected jet in previous chapters, right? To avoid confusion, just can say something like "jets after so-and-so corrections", which is much clearer.) l12 "gaussian" -> "fit of a Gaussian" better: "Tables 4 and 5 summarize the mean and the RMS obtained from fits of Gaussians to these distributions within the range -0.4 to 0.4. for all jet cone sizes". Skip line 14, it is very clear what you are referring to. ("particle jets obtained from MC" is misleading) *** p66 *** Fig. 35 caption, suggestion: "gamma-jet balance in data, Pythia and Herwig for R=0.4 after absolute corrections (circles). Overlaid is the corresponding gamma-jet balance on generator level (triangles). The distributions are normalized to 1." (you have defined "gamma-jet balance" previously, so take advantage of it and avoid lengthy constructions. "MC"... see my comment above) Legend: "Particle jets" -> "Generator level" "Calorimeter jets corrected" -> "After absolute correction" (avoid conflict with previous naming scheme!) l1 Better: "For jets after absolute correction with R=0.4, the mean ..." l3 "Generally, the pT of the jet is smaller than the pT of the photon due to..." l4 Skip repitition "of R=0.4" l6 Again problem with the naming scheme, better: "The mean values obtained from Pythia and Herwig samples after absolute corrections of the jets agree with the values at the corresponding generator level to within 1%." l7 Style: "This .." "independent check"? Suggestion: "...1%, which proves the validity of the absolute correction procedure." *** p67 *** Table 4, 5. Caption text: Skip "Measured" "particle jets" -> "generator level jets" Within the table: "Calorimeter jets" -> "Corrected jets" "Particle jets" -> "Generator level jets" l3 There is a verb missing: Suggestion: "However, the data generally agree with both MC samples to within 2%." l5 Better: "...the data resolution is around 20% worse than Herwig and 1-2% worse than Pythia, respectively." l6 The sentence "We observe..." sounds a bit too trivial to be mentioned after what you said one sentence before. Better merge with the next sentence (page 68 l1): "We observe that Herwig has a wider resolution than Pythia for both corrected and generator level jets." *** p68 *** l2-5 Style and reptition, too stiffly and complicated. Suggestion: "After applying all corrections (eta-dependent, absolute, OOC and UE correction) we obtain the gamma-jet balance as shown in Fig. 36. Table 6 contains the corresponding mean values derived using a fit of a Gaussian to data and MC distributions for all three cone sizes." Note: You have to say OOC + UE (either abbrevation or full text) and not just "out-of-cone", to be consistent with previous naming scheme. l5 "Data and MC agree with zero to within 2%, except for Herwig and a cone size of R=0.4. At generator level the differences between data and simulation is equal to those observed after absolute corrections, since OOC and UE correction were derived from Pythia and uniformly applied to all samples." Table 6, caption: skip "Measured". Skip ", including the out-of-cone energy correction" "for jet cone sizes R=..." Typo in table, should be "R=0.7" l13 Better "...free from background contamination. The drawback is that the sample suffers from smaller statistical precision." l15 Skip "there to be" l16 "p_T balance -> "{\it Z-jet balance}" (and skip comma) ...similarly to your previous definition of gamma-jet balance better: "In Fig. 37 we compare the ... in Z->e+e- and Z->mu+mu- events for data, Pythia and Herwig after all corrections." Skip "for all three cone sizes" Skip repitition "eta-dependent, absolute, and ..." l19 "The mean values derived from fits of Gaussians to the distributions between...0.3 are given in Tab.~7". (Note: use spacer "~" to avoid line break after Tab, Fig, etc., ). l20 "reasonable" -> "reasonably" comma after "sizes" "teh" -> "the" *** p69 *** Fig 36., caption, better: "gamma-jet balance in data, Pythia and Herwig for R=0.4, ..., after eta-dependent, absolute, OOC and UE corrections." l2 I honestly don't know what "inclusive jet MC" means. "the Pythia" -> "Pythia" l4,5 The sentence is not understandable. Do you mean: "This section describes an alternate dijet balancing technique usable for eta-dependent correction, and how Pythia can be used to correct all MC samples?" l6 "eta-dependence of jets"? Better: "A different approach to address the eta-dependence of the jet response is the so-called 'Missing E_T Projection' (MPF) method." *** p70 *** Fig 37., caption, better: "Z-jet balance in data, Pythia and Herwig for R=0.4, ..., after eta-dependent, absolute, OOC and UE corrections." Be consistent with style of Fig.36. You don't need to explain the symbols in the text. Legend: The font size is bigger than in Fig.36. l2 Use the abbrevation that you introduce before: "The MPF fraction is defined as ..." l5 Better: "...where the vector of the missing transverse energy, $\vec{E_T}$, is used..." Write vector symbol on top of pT^probe, pT^trigger (but not in line 6) l6 "Sec.~6" *** p 71 *** Table 7, caption: Skip "Measured". Skip ", including the out-of-cone energy correction" l1 "would be" -> "are" "2->2"? which "two definitions"? Suggestion: "In an ideal dijet production process with no gluon radiation and fragmentation effects, the MPF balance and the dijet balance are equivalent:" Eq. 36: Replace "Delta p_T f" by "f_b" (see page 36) "=beta" -> "=beta_dijet" l4 Skip "(resulting in more than 2 jets)" "OOC energy" -> "out-of-cone energy losses and UE contributions" l5 "In contrary" -> "In contrast" l5-10 Why does the dijet balance technique correct for OOC + UE? You made a similar statement on p36, line9). Do you mean that any ETA_DEPENDENCE of OOC+UE contributions are corrected for? Please rethink it. If I am right: l6 "OOC energy" -> "eta-dependence of OOC and UE effects" l7 "affected" -> "determined" l7 Better: "...has no sensitivity on the energy flow between inside and outside the jet cone" l9 "correct"->"corrects" l8,9 Style: "...to it. On the other hand...." is not appropriate. Better: "...to it, whereas the dijet balancing only depends on the energy inside the jet cone and thus implicitely corrects for (any eta dependence of?) OOC+UE effects." l11 No commas around "beta(MPG)/beta_dijet". l12-13 Skip sentence "beta_dijet is sensitive...UE event" which repeats what you said 2 sentences before. l13-15 To come to you point: "Since the MPF method is only sensitive to the eta-dependence of the calorimeter response, beta_dijet is expected to be smaller then beta(MPF). Skip "...thus giving a larger correction factor". I don't know what correction factor you are introducing here. You mean simply the ratio, right? Or you are referring to the beta? Then skip it. (I still do not understand how you argue with UE, OOC etc to explain that beta(MPF) > beta_dijet, see above.) l16 "absolute, OOC and UE" -> "individual" l18 "Fig. 15-17 show the dijet balance beta_dijet in data,..." l19 "Herwig data" -> "Herwig" l20,21 Better: "...Pythia and data points by about 10% at 25<..<55GeV/c and |eta|>0.6 BUT agree very well for pT_ave>105GeV/c. THE discrepancy..." l21 "...is larger..." than what? Or do you mean "largest"? l21,22 Better "THE discrepancy is largest FOR R=0.4. It is also seen for generator level jets." (Or do you mean "jets after absolute correction"? Please check what you mean with "particle jets", see my comments above.) l22 "the gamma-jets" -> "gamma-jets" l24,25 "underlying event" -> "underlying event energy" Skip "Pythia and Herwig" Better: "...distribution in the dijet MC and the gamma-jet MC." l26 "Fig.38" "data, Pythia and Herwig for" -> "data and MC at" l27 "at the" -> "at" l27,28 Better: "The data are well reproduced by Pythia, both showing an increase of the ratio up to 1.2 at |eta|~2.7. However, Herwig..." *** p72 *** Fig. 38. "beta" -> "beta_dijet" Drop the global title box. Caption: "of THE jet eta" l1 "...data since it..." -> "...data because it..." (repitition) l2 "for determining" -> "for the determination of" l5 typo, "uncertainty" l2-4 Better: "...for the determination of the eta-dependent corrections and their systematic uncertainties." (That is clear enough and avoids stiff repitition, and BTW: What do you mean with "this difference" at this point - just confuses the reader.) l6,7 Be compact and join first two sentences: "We test whether the agreement of data and MC is within the calculated uncertainties for all pT and eta bins." l7 "Fig.39" l7-9 "Fig. 39 shows the difference of the mean values of the photon-jet balance between data and Pythia as a function of pT and for six..." l9,10 Skip trivial sentence "This would be exactly 0 ... MC simulation" (What else should the reader expect if you speak about *differences* just one sentence before.) l10 Style: "Overlaid is the TOTAL systematic uncertainty on the jet energy scale." l12 Better:" ...eta and pT, and that any differences are covered by the quoted uncertainties." l13 Skip "MC". l17 Skip "In summary," l18 "valid in" -> "valid for" l18-19 Style suggestion: "...control samples. We have found the transverse momentum of the jet after all corrections is in balance with the transverse momentum of the photon and the Z boson in both measured and simulated photon-jet and Z-jet samples, respectively." *** p73-74 *** Fig 39-40, caption: Better: "Difference of the gamma-jet balance pT^jet/pT^gamma-1 between data and Pythia(Herwig) ... for the jet cone sizes 0.4 (...), 0.7 (...) and 1.0 (...). ..." "eta^jet" in text inconsistent with eta in figure. x axis title have different font size y axis title: "Data-Pythia: pT^jet/pT^gamma-1" -> "pT^jet/pT^gamma-1: Data-Pythia" (similarly to previous figures) *** p75 *** l1 Suggestion: "We observe large discrepancies in the simulated dijet balance in particular in the calorimeter plug region, which is also seen at generator level. l2-3 Repitition of "dijet process", better: "The dijet data clearly do not support the Herwig predictions, but this problem is not seen in other samples such as gamma-jet events." *** p76 *** l2,3 Skip "in the sections where the corrections were described." l3 "However..." at this point is inappropriate, better: "It turns out that the systematic uncertainties..." l3-6 But the following is beyond the scope of my understanding: "...the uncertainties...are ...independent of the correction..."? Perhaps I missed the point (please clarify this in the text), but I think this statement is simply not true. I suggest to say: "It turns out that the uncertainties are dominated by the imperfection of modeling of jets in the physics generators, and by uncertainties related to the measured and simulated particle response in the calorimeter." (Using "dominate" avoids later repitition.) l7 "Fig.41" Skip "the comparison of all". "different" -> "individual" l8 Better: "of THE transverse momentum of jets in the central region of the calorimeter, 0.2<|eta|<0.6." l9 "...added in quadrature to derive the total uncertainty." l10 Skip "high" l11 "uncertainty on" -> "uncertainty of" l10-12 Suggestion: "...arises from the precision of the absolute jet energy scale which is limited by the uncertainty of the calorimeter response to charged hadrons." l13,14 Better: "...simulation, and by including CDF single track data which recently became available, replacing test beam data used so far in the momentum region 7-20 GeV/c and probably beyond." (NB: For the past tuning CDF data up to 5GeV/c, not 20GeV/c were used.) *** p77 *** l2 better: "...between data and the predictions of Pythia and Herwig, and by optimizing the fragmentation and underlying event model of both generators." (Keep font style of generators consistently) l4-5 The fragmentation and UE model is not an additional uncertainty since it explicitely contributes to the OOC. If you want to mention it, see comment to line 2 above. Therefore line 4-5 reduces to "Additional but negligible uncertainties come from the stability of the calorimeter calibration." *** p78 *** l7,8,9 "calorimeters" -> "calorimeter" l8 "in situ" -> "CDF" l10 "MC" -> "Monte Carlo" l11,12 To avoid repitition: "The Monte Carlo simulation is used to correct the calorimeter jet energy response in the central part." l13 "pile-up" -> "multiple interactions" l15-18 Style and grammar. Suggestion: "In studies of prompt photons and Z boson events we verified that the corrected jet energy is a good measure of the underlying parton energy. The various Monte Carlo generators provide a good description of the data within the quoted systematic errors." l19 "The TOTAL systematic ..." l21 This is a wrong statement. The conservative uncertainty on the test beam calibration at p>20GeV/c has only reduced impact on the jet energy uncertainty because the contribution of such high momentum tracks is not dominant in a jet. And for p<20 GeV we use CDF data. So I suggest to rewrite the sentence: "The dominant source of uncertainty at high jet energies is the imperfectness of the calorimeter simulation, and at low jet energies it is the uncertainty in modeling the energy flow around the jet cone." *** p79-80 *** References: [8],[20],[21],[38] incomplete [28] Put quotation marks around "Computing in ...2003" Skip "preprint". [29] Put quotation marks around "Detector Description and Simulation Tool" [33] Simon Sabik, "", Thesis, University of ..., in preparation. [35] "Proceedings OF 'Moriond, QCD and Hadronic Interactions'". NIM references: replace ":" by "," and no comma before "(year)" ******** The End ************