ATLAS EFT Results in the Top Quark Sector

Dear Referee,

Thank you so much for the feedback! I have fixed all of your points with some explanations below. I have fixed the document (pdf) as well. Can you give me an instruction how to upload the new edited pdf on SciPost (or does it have to be changed in arXiv?)?

Best regards,
Dongwon.

Abstract: “no direct evidence” → unclear what “direct evidence is”. Perhaps “no evidence of direct production of BSM particles” or similar?
>> Fixed

Abstract: “SMEFT extends” → “The SMEFT extends”
>> Fixed

Abstract: “offering a framework” → please rephrase: the SMEFT does not “offer” a framework, it IS a framework
>> I changed the entire sentence to make it a bit more clear: The SMEFT, a framework for probing BSM effects, extends the SM by introducing higher-dimensional operators parameterized by Wilson coefficients.

Abstract, last sentence: “reducing degeneracies and tightening constraints” → one needs to clarify what are the degeneracies and constraints one is referring to
>> deleted the mentioned part to make sentence clear.
>> changed it to the following sentence: Combined measurements enhance sensitivity to Wilson coefficients, exploring the potential of SMEFT in the top quark sector.
S1: “The lack of direct evidence” → same comments as the first comment on the abstract
>> Fixed

S2: “Measurements of different processes or vertices” → vertices are not physical observables, and therefore cannot be measured. Please rephrase
>> Removed vertices part -> revised sentence: Measurements of different processes provide sensitivity to distinct EFT operators

S2.1: “For the single-lepton channel, a multi-class neural network (NN)” → here the reader wonders if a potential BSM effect would affect the response of the NN. Was this taken into account or quantified somehow? I suggest adding a brief comment on the topic
>> It is not explicitly mentioned in the published paper (https://inspirehep.net/literature/2768921), but input variables used in the NN are well-modelled in the data. I added the sentence to make this point clear at the end of the first paragraph in 2.1:

The results demonstrate good agreement with the SM, and it was carefully checked that the input variables are well-modelled in the data.

S2.1: “One of the resulting limits on ctB and ctW are consistent with the SM predictions” → could you clarify this sentence? Only one of them is consistent with the SM?
>> The sentence was misleading: both ctB and ctW are consistent with SM predictions
>> New sentence: Extracted limits on $\mathcal{C}_{tB}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{tW}$ are consistent with SM predictions, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:eft_ttgamma}(a).

S2.2: here it seems fully simulated samples including EFT effects have been used. Please clarify that in the text
>> Added a sentence at the end of the paragraph to clarify this information:
Fully simulated samples incorporating SMEFT effects have been used to ensure accurate modelling of these contributions.

Attachment:

Proceedings_TOP2024_EFT_in_ATLAS__Edited.pdf