Table 8 : the electron fake rate is much smaller than the muon fake rate in the high eta region. Is it because the electron ID in high eta is much higher than muon ID ?
Section 7 : do you fit two control regions(top-tagged and WZ) simultaneously ? or you fit top-tagged CR first ? It seems to me the non-prompt contribution does not change before and after fit in Fig. 4.
Fig. 9 :(plotting style) right now the aQGC histograms cannot be seen easily. usually we plot the signal on top of background and non-zero aQGC is stacked. I think we also want to include this figure to PAS.
Fig 3: please also add prefit distributions the same as for WZ CR
table 10: please change“indicative” numbers to either range per bin(for example 3-5%)(preferable) or to the mean value of uncertainty per bin.
please report the postfit“signal strengths” for non-prompt and WZ in the AN(not the PAS)
WWss documentation comments(March 15):
Dear authors,
I have read the documentation version from March 9, the day I printed it :) . Comparing quickly with the today’s document I think it is almost the same. The line numbers below correspond to today’s version of the documentation.
I only have few minor physics/analysis related questions. The rest is all editorial.. Please be aware that we can not freeze the documentation until it is in a good shape and describes what is done in the analysis. Frozen documentation is what conveners and others will review for your analysis pre-approval. I see no show stopper in the analysis it self.
Physics:
QED-QCD interference. Ok, this is now documented in AN section 3. I agree that neglecting the interference is ok since it is small.
I guess if we would want to include it it would mean to include it as the part of the signal definition and keep WW QCD only as background. So for the cross section measurement of the“signal”(=EWK+interference) the effect of the interference would be via acceptanceXefficiecny, and the effect on the signal shape in 2D mjj_mll. The fiducial PS definition now is close to what you do at reco level, so the effect on acceptanceXefficiecny will be small. The effect from signal shape is also going to be small since measurement is stat dominated. Also the effect on both will be small in general anyway simply because the interference is <6%.
WZ/gamma*
I understand that the normalization is taken from data CR and the shape from MC. Correct?
Please add the data to MC comparison from this CR: table or plot
table 7. I am a bit confused with these uncertainties. It says these are stat only.. For example WZ has unc of 2%.. Is this just MC uncertainty without stat uncertainty from CR? DPS WW has 9% and table 10 says 20%. Please check or clarify.
Editorial:
VBS vs EWK production. As far as I understand your“signal” is EWK and not only the VBS. It is a bit confusing in few places in the documentation. Expecialy in L860(today’s doc version) where you say“significance of the observation of the production via VBS”.
L79, L801: make the mean PU value consistent between AN and PAS
L748: 36.2→35.9 fb-1
L89: please update WZ and ZZ MC Powheg→MG
table 2: please add names of used official EWK and QCD WW samples
perhaps I simply missed it but I did not see in the documentation described that QCD WW is taken from simulation..
L403: requirement. requirement.
figure 3 is missing data points in today’s doc version
figure 4, WZ control region. The uncertainty(shaded area) on the estimation from MC+non-promt is much larger then it was in the past. If I compare to last SMP-VV report. Uncertainty should be dominated by WZ MC stat uncertainty.. Please check.
L496: WZ is not estimated from simulation
table 10: missing WW QCD and Wgamma and corresponding systematics
L515: table 17→11
L517: please update the signal definition!
L520: fit is in mjj_mll, not mjj
L582:“using a mjj binned template” → mjj_mll
L754:“Cross section measurements for W±W± and WZ processes” →“Cross section measurements for EWK W±W± process”
L791: please update signal definition!
L796:“powheg” →“MG”
L895 and L529: jet eta 5.0→4.7, even though there are no events in between.
Wgamma sample and bkg estimation is not mentioned in the PAS.. or did I miss it?
L857: please update the signal definition and interference!
L858:“Themjj and leading-lepton pT” →“Themjj and mll”
L861:“four bins in mjj with two bins in the lepton charge” please update!
Physics:
Editorial: