From castro@fnal.gov Sat Mar 15 15:09:35 2003
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:21:09 -0600
From: Andrea Castro at cdfsga 
To: H. H. Williams 
Cc: smaria@fnal.gov, burkett@fnal.gov, worm@fnal.gov, slaughter@fnal.gov,
     williams@higgs.hep.upenn.edu
Subject: comments on the PRL draft and on note 5151

Hello everybody,
in preparation for the meeting of tommorrow, hoping to be able to
partecipate somehow, let me send you a few comments.

 PRL
=====

 text (you certainly ca do better, but I do my part anyway)
------

- page 3, 5th line: reFERRed
 A: fixed 

- page 3, 23rd line: no abbreviation for Kaluza-Klein
 A: fixed 


- page 3, 8th line from bottom: fig. # missing
 A: fixed 


- table I: 1<=Njet
           cone 0.7
           MET > 80 GeV
          \ eta_d in the table, but \eta in the text
 A: fixed 

- page 4, 2nd column, 19th line: doMINant;
             one missing bracket for Z(\to ll)
 A: fixed 

- page 6, 2nd column, 2nd line: foR
 A: fixed 

- everywhere, Standard Model ==> satandard model (I favore the uppercase
  myself, but I remember having been corrected by a PRL editor)
 A: fixed 


 figures
---------
2) - the meaning of "bin contents normalized as labelled" is not clear
   - since the bin is variable the y-axis label (Evt/10 GeV) is not OK
 A: The text is actually correct 

   - the last two bind have 0.3 entries (because you divided by 3 I
     guess).  this makes the distribution partly regular, partly
     differential. I find this confusing. Is there a better way to put it?
 A: fixed 


3) in the\delta\phi plot the x-axis is in radians but the y-axis label
   says "Evt/5 degrees": slight formally inconsistent
 A: We will fix this 

4) a caption more descriptive would be suitable (what are the three curves?)
 A: fixed 


 contents
----------
- what about the systematics on the background? they are quoted in a
  figure caption but not in the text. furthermore, a brief discussion of
  the sources of uncertainty might be appropriate
 A: fixed 

- a K-factor is introduced in page 4, but it is never referres to when
  the scale exclusion is discussed. what is the real use of it?
 A: fixed 

Now CDFNOTE 5151
=================

- inconsistency between fig. 28 and 27: what happens to the events with
  MET>180?
 A: We can check exactly what cuts these events fail 

- fig. 28 and 29 same comment as for fig 2 of the PRL
 A: same answer as above

- page 26: why 7087 events Z\to e+e- + jets and not 16540 of page 22 ?

 A: Different MC sample are used; the result is the same 

- page 26: sigma(Z\to e+e-)normalized = 306 pb, w.r.t. sigma_PYT=309 pb ?
           so close? instead for W there is a difference (2816 w.r.t. 3220 pb)
 A:Different MC sample are used; the result is the same 
- I would like to have a break-up of the systematics on Z->\nu\nu
 A: Major is the luminosity since we directly normalize 
    to data; we say this in the text now 


- why we do not depend on K-factor while D0 does?
 A: It is not a matter of dependence.  We have now added 
limits for K factors of both 1.0 and 1.3.

that's it for the time being


cheers
  Andrea