Dear all,
The EB is providing us reading material for the beach (or the office): a
paper that should be called "yet another measurement of gamma". Lennaert
kindly agreed to collect comments. The deadline is Thursday 3 August, so
please send comments by Wed 2nd.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-030,
Measurement of $C\!P$ observables in $B^\pm \to DK^{\ast \pm}$ decays
using two- and four-body $D$-meson final states
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:29:28 +0000
From: fergus.wilson(a)stfc.ac.uk
To: lhcb-general(a)cern.ch
CC: LHCb-PAPER-2017-030-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 : Measurement of $C\!P$ observables in $B^\pm \to DK^{\ast \pm}$ decays using two- and four-body $D$-meson final states
Journal : JHEP
Contact authors : Anita_Nandi, Sneha_Malde
Reviewers : Jonas_Rademacker (chair), Eva_Gersabeck
EB reviewer : David_Ward
EB readers : Roland_Waldi, Alberto_Correa_dor_Reis
Analysis note : ANA-2017-005
Deadline : 3-Aug-2017
e-group : lhcb-paper-2017-030-reviewers
Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2275257
Authors : LHCb
Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/Bu2DKstar
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments:
Cincinnati__United_States
Ruprecht-Karls-Universitaet_Heidelberg__Germany
Valencia-CSIC__Spain
NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands
RWTH_Aachen__Germany
IHEP__Protvino__Russia
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
More replies on Bose-Einstein.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: LHCB-PAPER-2017-025-001-COMMENT-010 (a comment has been made
on your comment)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 09:55:14 +0200
From: CERN Document Server Submission Engine <cds.support(a)cern.ch>
To: patrick.koppenburg(a)cern.ch
Dear LHCb Colleague,
The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2017-025-001-COMMENT-009) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2017-025-001
(entitled: 'Study of the Bose-Einstein correlations of same-sign charged pions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV') has itself been commented on by Marcin Kucharczyk [CERN - EP/ULB] (marcin.kucharczyk(a)cern.ch).
This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2017-025-001-COMMENT-010) may be seen at
http://cds.cern.ch/record/2273360
Best regards,
The CERN Document Server Server support Team
Hi all,
Marcin has replied to our comments. Please see
https://cds.cern.ch/record/2273007
An annoyance is that out of six assigned institutes only one has replied
(me want cookie!). I wonder now how Vincenzo will decide whether this
goes to EPS (or, well, I know too well).
Many replies make me unhappy.
> The fits in Fig.2 are very bad at low Q. You do not mention this. How
> good are your fits in terms of Q2? It shows that the parameterization
> is not fully correct. In particular we worry since there is a
> correlation between the radius and chaoticity parameters. There must
> be a systematic effect involved.
> -> Yes, we did not mention this on perpose. We would like to avoid
> such a discussion. It is known feature with this kind of
> parametrisation seen always in analyses from other experiments. One
> can hardly find a paper about BEC with such a discussion. People
> tried another parametrisations giving better chi2/ndf of the fit but
> interpretation of the parameters is then not straigthforward, and they
> are not quoting any results from such fits. Therefore, all the
> published results are quoted for Levy parametrisation or Gaussian fit
> allowing to compare the results. No one discussed the features of the
> fit in detail.
You cannot avoid such a discussion as it already started in LHCb. We see
that the fit is better in the ATLAS paper (1502.07947) and in the CMS
paper (1101.3518). In the latter the chi2/Ndof is given and they write
"The fit quality is poor, as can be seen from the values of χ2 /Ndof .
Gaussian parameterizations, which are used by some experiments, provide
values of χ2 /Ndof larger than 9, which confirms the observation in [4]
that an exponential parameterization is preferred." In 1005.3294 they
also give fit probabilities. So not mentioning what is visible by eye is
not a good strategy.
What we are worried about is that for a bad fit the value of the
parameters is biased or even meaningless. The size of such a bias should
be assessed.
> We decided to use 2011 data only since we did not have the pythia8
> simulation for 2010 sample.
This was taken 7 years ago. There was plenty of time to address that.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
========================================================================
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam
http://www.koppenburg.ch/address.html