bfys-physics November 2017

bfys-physics@nikhef.nl

3 participants
3 discussions

[Bfys-physics] Fwd: LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-022 (a comment has been made on your comment)
by Mick Mulder 17 Nov '17

17 Nov '17

Dear all, We just got a response to our comments to the Lc->pmumu paper. Please have a look if your comments were properly addressed. From a quick look by me, it looks quite okay. Cheers, Mick -------- Doorgestuurd bericht -------- Onderwerp: LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-022 (a comment has been made on your comment) Datum: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:32:57 +0100 Van: CERN Document Server Submission Engine <cds.support(a)cern.ch> Aan: mick.mulder(a)cern.ch Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-005) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001 (entitled: 'Search for the suppressed $\Lambda^+_c \to p \mu^+ \mu^-$ deacy and observation of the $\Lambda^+_c \to p \omega$ decay') has itself been commented on by Mariusz Witek [CERN - EP/ULB] (mariusz.witek(a)cern.ch). This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-022) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2293185 Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team

1 0

[Bfys-physics] Fwd: LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-013 (a comment has been made on your comment)
by Mick Mulder 06 Nov '17

06 Nov '17

Dear all, We just got the replies from Marcin to our comments. As they are presenting at the Implications workshop, they just responded to physics questions. The main criticism we had, not showing the efficiency in bins of q^2, will be adressed (they forgot to put the plot in the paper, apparently). One thing that is still not clear to me is what result the fit gives in the non-resonant region. I propose we ask them to show the fit with signal and background included, and then I would be happy for them to show this at the Implications. Please give me any comments you might still have as soon as possible (today), so the proponents still will have time to look at them. Cheers, Mick ----------------------------- Dear Mick, Thank you for your comments. We will address the editorial comments later. For know (in rush for implications workshop) please find our answer for the physics comments: L. 104 So the sWeighted data agrees with simulation after the pre-selection and first BDT cut? How well does it agree before the BDT cut? Before the BDT cut, we don’t have Lc peak to check this(to large background) - L.147: We disagree with this strategy. As you do not provide an efficiency map versus the Dalitz plane, interested readers cannot recast your limit to their favourite model. You actually do not even give an indication of how the efficiency varies on the DP. We suggest you either assign a systematic uncertainty or provide an efficiency map. We apologize for this. We have planned to include the efficiency map in the paper all along(it is in our ANA note), but in rush towards the implications workshop we forgot to put it in. it will appear for sure in the next version. - L.153: We hope that what you did is not what is described in the text. The polynomial pdf describes the background, not the non-resonant region. You must have tried to fit the \Lc somehow in order to get a limit. Why don't you show the peak (which my be negative) and give the fitted yield? I think there is a confusion. The polynomial refers in this case to the background component. We will try to make it clear. L. 155 So sigma is fixed, also for the normalisation channel? Would it be possible to float it in data, at least for systematics? We did not find a mass shape systematic in the ana note. We did this for the first version, however it turned out they are consistent so RC suggested to drop it. L. 166 Which systematic uncertainties are included in the CLs? It makes sense that the stat. error on Lc -> p mu mu and Lc -> p phi are both included. They are of course included. Figure 3 Do you also have this plot for lower and higher masses? There should be a range for q^2 from 0 to 1350 MeV. If it is basically empty, it would be good to mention. We could provide this plot but the fit becomes more complicated. As the background component is not linear in the full range. The only purpose of this plot is to convince the reader that the omega is really an omega and not a rho. We are thinking about providing this plot in supplementary material without the fit. -------- Doorgestuurd bericht -------- Onderwerp: LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-013 (a comment has been made on your comment) Datum: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 23:34:39 +0100 Van: CERN Document Server Submission Engine <cds.support(a)cern.ch> Aan: mick.mulder(a)cern.ch Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-005) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001 (entitled: 'Search for the suppressed $\Lambda^+_c \to p \mu^+ \mu^-$ deacy and observation of the $\Lambda^+_c \to p \omega$ decay') has itself been commented on by Marcin Jakub Chrzaszcz [CERN - EP/LBD] (marcin.chrzaszcz(a)cern.ch). This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-013) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2291652 Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team

2 2

Re: [Bfys-physics] Fwd: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-039, Search for the suppressed $\Lambda^+_c \to p \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay and observation of the $\Lambda^+_c \to p \omega$ decay
by mmulder 01 Nov '17

01 Nov '17

Dear Patrick, Tim Gershon also insisted on some systematic uncertainty, and I think it was requested by the RC at some point. So this is a widely shared concern. They both proposed to include a systematic using the RMS of the efficiency over q2, but I think to include the efficiency in q2 bins would be even better. Cheers,Mick -------- Oorspronkelijk bericht --------Van: Patrick Koppenburg <patrick.koppenburg(a)cern.ch> Datum: 30-10-17 17:21 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Mick Mulder <mmulder(a)nikhef.nl>, bfys-physics(a)nikhef.nl Onderwerp: Re: [Bfys-physics] Fwd: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-039, Search for the suppressed $\Lambda^+_c \to p \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay and observation of the $\Lambda^+_c \to p \omega$ decay Dear Mick, Here are my comments on the paper. We need to decide how much we insist about my 1st physics comment. Anyone else agrees? //=================================================================== Physics: - L.147: We disagree with this strategy. As you do not provide an efficiency map versus the Dalitz plane, interested readers cannot recast your limit to their favourite model. You actually do not even give an indication of how the efficiency varies on the DP. We suggest you either assign a systematic uncertainty or provide an efficiency map. - L.153: We hope that what you did is not what is described in the text. The polynomial pdf describes the background, not the non-resonant region. You must have tried to fit the \Lc somehow in order to get a limit. Why don't you show the peak (which my be negative) and give the fitted yield? General: - PRL does not have sections. - You mix British and American spelling. You may use either (PRL will translate if needed) but be consistent.\ - It is a pity no additional plots are provided. Line-by-line: Abstract: "A search for contributions from flavour-changing neutral currents to the decay \decay{\Lc}{...}". Below, we suggest to add the range of q^2 your BF limit corresponds to. L.18-20: you mix mumu and ll modes. At this level you should stick to ll. Aslo, use \ellell and define what \ell stands for. L.20: .\footnote{...} The (you miss the space and have the dot at the wrong place) L.23: vector-meson L.24: In this Letter. But actually the letter reports only. So here you mean the analysis. L.27: [4] reporting a signal yield of 11.1\pm5.0\pm2.5 and an upper limit... L.29: remove "It is worth pointing out that" (everything we write is worth pointing out) L.31: Remove However L.32: stimulates -> motivates L.33: Similar processes in the \Dp system have not been found to date. L.36: using data corresponding to 3\invfb L.37: to the decay \decay{\Lc}{p\phi} with \decay{\phi}{\mumu} L.37: add that \phi stands for \phi(1020) throughout. L.67: at the $pp$ collision point or in \bquark-hadron decays. (do you need the word "prompt"?) L.75: events -> decays L.78: required to be of good quality and have \pt L.82: Three dimuon mass regions are defined : * a region... and so on L.83 and everywhere else: \mevcc already contains a space before MeV, so do not add one yourself. Fig.1: we suggest to add "\phi region" L.103: remove "candidates" L.103: for the final optimisation of the selection L.106: no need of "baryon" L.112: the one -> that L.113: An irreducible background originates from (it's not dangerous once identified) L.115: \rhoz. the \omega meson L.123: remove "the following formula" Table 1: all rows are called "efficiency ratio". You could drop that term. L.128: remove "the following formula:" (never put a colon) L.140: remove "one" L.146: remove "the relevant columns of" L.147: according to a phase-space model. L.148: see above. But the actual decay is not a model. It's Nature. Fig.2: We suggest you add the \Lc component to the top plot. Plese label the plots as non-resonant, phi and omega so they can be re-used in talks easily. The - on mu- should be longer (also in following plots). L.153: For the nonresonant region, a first-order... (but see above) L.157-9: no need to refere to figs 2a, 2b, 2c. One fr Fig 2 is enough. L.158: candidates -> decays L.158: events -> candidates Fig.4: It's hard to put a {\cal B} on an axis legend, but avoid BR while you write B in the paper. L.165: the -> an L.168, 172, 174, 176: remove ":" L.176+1: . -> , L.182: 5.0\sigma (no space) L.184: from BaBar -> by the BaBar collaboration [1] There should be no number 7 in the reference [5] why not R_K*? [22] use the template [28] use the template Cheers, On 10/26/2017 11:17 AM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: Hi all, By the virtue of the self-screwing procedure, Mick is volunteering to collect comments for this paper. Thanks Mick. On 10/24/2017 01:16 PM, Mick Mulder wrote: Dear all, This paper was assigned to us on the 19th. If I remember correctly it is the analysis of the new PhD student at ATLAS, Marko. Marko did his Master thesis on this channel, but the results presented here are those of the Krakow analysis. They are slightly more precise. I don't know the history. Mick, please let the list know by when you need the comments. Cheers, Patrick The deadline is on the 2nd of November, so next week on Thursday. Cheers, Mick -------- Doorgestuurd bericht -------- Onderwerp: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-039, Search for the suppressed $\Lambda^+_c \to p \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay and observation of the $\Lambda^+_c \to p \omega$ decay Datum: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:36:23 +0000 Van: fergus.wilson(a)stfc.ac.uk Aan: lhcb-general(a)cern.ch CC: LHCb-PAPER-2017-039-reviewers(a)cern.ch Dear Colleagues, A draft paper is available for your comments. Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group (see below)! Title : Search for the suppressed $\Lambda^+_c \to p \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay and observation of the $\Lambda^+_c \to p \omega$ decay Journal : PRL Contact authors : Marcin_Chrzaszcz Reviewers : Tom_Blake (chair), Harry_Cliff EB reviewer : Simon_Eidelman EB readers : Roland_Waldi, Roberta_Santacesaria Analysis note : ANA-2016-015 Deadline : 2-Nov-2017 e-group : lhcb-paper-2017-039-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2289981 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Lc2PMuMu The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAL__Orsay__France Warwick__United_Kingdom Ruprecht-Karls-Universitaet_Heidelberg__Germany NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands LPC__Clermont-Ferrand__France Barcelona__Spain Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies to all comments made. Subsequent modifications to the draft will be made in consultation with the reviewers and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board, with contact authors and reviewers present, when final decisions will be made. As the last step, the collaboration will be given a final opportunity to comment during a 'silent approval' period. You can find all paper and conference report drafts open for comments via the EB web-page, by clicking on Current Drafts: http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/lhcb_page/collaboration/organization/editorial… Best regards, Fergus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fergus Wilson, PPD & CERN, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK. Tel: +44-(0)1235 445259 Fax: +44-(0)1235 445672 CERN Tel: +41-22 76 77379 Skype: ferguswilson5259 _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics(a)nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics -- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam https://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact -- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam https://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

bfys-physics November 2017