with apologies for my delay - here some comments to this version of the note.
(1) References: by running a search for "[" through your note, I find that
(a) refs. 11 and 24 are not in the text, but still in the list of references
(b) the references are in disorder, e.g. [35] comes in the text between [13] and [14]. etc
(2) Figures: In this new version, Figure 3 is mentioned in the text before Figure 2 - this is not usually done in a publication.
(3) Section 5: While action was taken to modify section 5 following my earlier comments, the result is not satisfactory. In particular, cutting out entire blocks of text with adjusting the remainder of the text does not give good results. In this way, the numbers given in the first column of Table 2 ("Rejection rate") are now not really justified by any element given in the text - certainly, ref. [23] is not explaining these numbers.
I do not agree with the statement "more than 30% of all events can be expected to be falsely tagged", since this is immediately over-ruled by what follows. At least one should say "could" or "would" be falsely tagged. Moreover, the cut of 200 GeV and 1.7 deg is still not explained in the text (but it is mentioned more than once).
Finally, the concluding sentence of section 5 is debatable: If we reject less than 50% of background in channels which are orders of magnitude more frequent than the signal (see Table 1), is this really a "large fraction" ? Possibly, the misunderstanding stems from the fact that there is no-where an overview table showing how different pre-selection or other cuts reduce the different physics backgrounds.
(4) Other comments (not in order of appearance in the paper)
(a) in the abstract, a space is missing between "Model" and "(SM)"
(b) in 6.1, there is a typo (choice <-> choise)
(c) in Table 3, there are inconsistencies in the accuracy used for the numbers: one cross section is given with an extra digit, the other is not; 26.6% is given as result, but this is not transformed into "13.3%", rather into "13%". In the abstract, 27% is used instead of 26.6%.
Moreover, in Table 3, the notion (80%, 0%) is used, but this is not explained. Finally, the caption of Table 3 says "with unpolarised beams", while the table has both unpol. and pol. results.
(d) in Section 8, "a smaller factors" should be changed into "smaller factors", and "to higher value" changed to "to a higher value"
(e) in Section 9, "ca. 75%" is used once - better changed this consistently to "75%"
(f) in 7.1 the paragraph stops with "." on page 5, and on page 6 you immediately start with an equation (rather than some words) - this is a bit unconventional.
(g) in section 3, page 2 left column towards the end, you should remove "(strong)" - this adds no information.
(h) also right there, I believe that the instrumented yoke contributes to the muon IDENTIFICATION rather than reconstruction
http://esicking.web.cern.ch/esicking/1561_001.pdf
At this link you can find a second iteration of your paper with comments from me.
While reading it, I realised that several comments from the first round were not implemented.
In particular, section 4 still has a large part on the comparison of properties between signal and background events, which belongs in section 6.
Also, the references are still mixed up.
Dear Gordana et al.,
with apologies for my delay - here some comments to this version of the note.
(1) References: by running a search for "[" through your note, I find that
(a) refs. 11 and 24 are not in the text, but still in the list of references
(b) the references are in disorder, e.g. [35] comes in the text between [13] and [14]. etc
(2) Figures: In this new version, Figure 3 is mentioned in the text before Figure 2 - this is not usually done in a publication.
(3) Section 5: While action was taken to modify section 5 following my earlier comments, the result is not satisfactory. In particular, cutting out entire blocks of text with adjusting the remainder of the text does not give good results. In this way, the numbers given in the first column of Table 2 ("Rejection rate") are now not really justified by any element given in the text - certainly, ref. [23] is not explaining these numbers.
I do not agree with the statement "more than 30% of all events can be expected to be falsely tagged", since this is immediately over-ruled by what follows. At least one should say "could" or "would" be falsely tagged. Moreover, the cut of 200 GeV and 1.7 deg is still not explained in the text (but it is mentioned more than once).
Finally, the concluding sentence of section 5 is debatable: If we reject less than 50% of background in channels which are orders of magnitude more frequent than the signal (see Table 1), is this really a "large fraction" ? Possibly, the misunderstanding stems from the fact that there is no-where an overview table showing how different pre-selection or other cuts reduce the different physics backgrounds.
(4) Other comments (not in order of appearance in the paper)
(a) in the abstract, a space is missing between "Model" and "(SM)"
(b) in 6.1, there is a typo (choice <-> choise)
(c) in Table 3, there are inconsistencies in the accuracy used for the numbers: one cross section is given with an extra digit, the other is not; 26.6% is given as result, but this is not transformed into "13.3%", rather into "13%". In the abstract, 27% is used instead of 26.6%.
Moreover, in Table 3, the notion (80%, 0%) is used, but this is not explained. Finally, the caption of Table 3 says "with unpolarised beams", while the table has both unpol. and pol. results.
(d) in Section 8, "a smaller factors" should be changed into "smaller factors", and "to higher value" changed to "to a higher value"
(e) in Section 9, "ca. 75%" is used once - better changed this consistently to "75%"
(f) in 7.1 the paragraph stops with "." on page 5, and on page 6 you immediately start with an equation (rather than some words) - this is a bit unconventional.
(g) in section 3, page 2 left column towards the end, you should remove "(strong)" - this adds no information.
(h) also right there, I believe that the instrumented yoke contributes to the muon IDENTIFICATION rather than reconstruction
So much for this time, best regards, Konrad
Dear Gordana,
http://esicking.web.cern.ch/esicking/1561_001.pdf
At this link you can find a second iteration of your paper with comments from me.
While reading it, I realised that several comments from the first round were not implemented.
In particular, section 4 still has a large part on the comparison of properties between signal and background events, which belongs in section 6.
Also, the references are still mixed up.
Best regards, Eva