Dear all,
We have a new paper assigned to us. Sean kindly agreed to collect our
comments. Please note the circulation deadline is 26/5.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2018-025,
Search for $C\!P$ violation in $\Lambda^0_b o pK^-$ and $\Lambda^0_b o
p\pi^-$ decays
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 18:28:57 +0200
From: Patrick Koppenburg <patrick.koppenburg(a)cern.ch>
To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general(a)cern.ch>
CC: LHCb-PAPER-2018-025-reviewers(a)cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments. Note that due to
conference deadlines this draft is on a slightly accelerated schedule.
Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations.
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments
via the CDS link given below:
NIKHEF, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
Yandex School of Data Analysis, Moscow, Russia
CBPF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Title : Search for $C\!P$ violation in $\Lambda^0_b o pK^-$ and
$\Lambda^0_b o p\pi^-$ decays
Journal : PLB
Contact authors : Fabio Ferrari, Stefano Perazzini
Reviewers : Irina Nasteva (chair), Shanzhen Chen
EB reviewer : Alberto Correa dos Reis
EB readers : Franco Bedeschi, Mike Williams
Analysis note : ANA-2018-002
Deadline : 26-May-2018
e-group : lhcb-paper-2018-025-reviewers
CDS link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2318506
Authors : LHCb
Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Lb2phCPV
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,
Patrick
--
========================================================================
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam
http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
Dear all,
We have a new paper assigned to us. The lifetime of the doubly charmed
and doubly charged baryon, which helps addressing some issues between us
and SELEX. Any volunteer to collect comments?
Thanks
Patrick
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2018-019,
Measurement of the lifetime of the doubly charmed baryon $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 09:36:14 +0200
From: Patrick Koppenburg <patrick.koppenburg(a)cern.ch>
To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general(a)cern.ch>
CC: LHCb-PAPER-2018-019-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.
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments
via the CDS link given below:
Birmingham, United Kingdom
Ruprecht-Karls-Universitaet Heidelberg, Germany
NIKHEF VU, The Netherlands
LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Cincinnati, United States
Title : Measurement of the lifetime of the doubly charmed baryon
$\Xi_{cc}^{++}$
Journal : PRL
Contact authors : Jibo He, Yuehong Xie, Yuanning Gao, Jiesheng Yu,
Daniel Vieira
Reviewers : Angelo Di Canto (chair), Steve Blusk
EB reviewer : Stefania Vecchi
EB readers : Roland Waldi, Roberta Santacesaria
Analysis note : ANA-2017-032
Deadline : 17-May-2018
e-group : lhcb-paper-2018-019-reviewers
CDS link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2316030
Authors : LHCb
Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/XiccLifetime
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,
Patrick
--
========================================================================
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam
http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
This message contains
graphics. If you do not see the graphics, click here to view.
Invest in Bitcoin now and you can earn
daily!
Join
Bitcoin Investor and Start Generating Money.
Hi Niels,
indeed the explanation is exactly as Laurent says. The effect of the bug
in the n-body topological trigger lines is basically dropping prompt
events with more than one PV (IPCHI2<16), which becomes worse as a
function of n. If we wouldn't have the OR in the topo lines, the effect
would be indeed catastrophic, but also probably detected already during
2015. For 2018 data-taking, the functor will be removed from the trigger
lines. We'd probably do the same for the Stripping if the users agree.
Cheers
On 10/04/18 17:21, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
> Indeed. 10% of the events are not saved.
>
> The effect would be much worse if the IP-OR was not there. For a calibration line for example, I do not have this OR in there. My difference is approximately 250% (I’m sensitive to combinatorics), for example.
>
> Cheers,
> Laurent
>
>> On 10 Apr 2018, at 17:10, Niels Tuning <h71(a)nikhef.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> Thanks for the info!! What a nightmare...
>>
>> I don't understand one thing from Olli's slides: he says that about 10% of the 3-body topo events are affected? What does he mean?
>> That 10% of the events are not selected in the trigger?
>>
>> But you told me that the OR with a displacement requirement probably saves many events?
>> (AALLSAMEBPV(-1, -1, -1) | (AMINCHILD(MIPCHI2DV(PRIMARY)) > 16)
>>
>> How can I reconcile these two statements?
>>
>> Cheers & thanks! Niels
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Carlos Vázquez Sierra wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> as you probably know there is a bug in one of the LoKi functors (only affecting Run-2 data & MC), namely AALLSAMEBPV.
>>> Olli has presented today the topic at the Tuesday meeting:
>>>
>>> https://indico.cern.ch/event/715191/contributions/2960112/attachments/16301…
>>>
>>> In case you have worked in a Run-2 analysis, please check if you have used this functor explicitly in your selection. If yes, your results might be affected.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Vázquez Sierra
>>> LHCb Collaboration
>>> NIKHEF - National Institute for Subatomic Physics
>>> https://phonebook.cern.ch/phonebook/#id=PE704221 + carlos.vazquez(a)cern.ch
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bfys-group mailing list
>>> Bfys-group(a)nikhef.nl
>>> https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-group
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bfys-group mailing list
>> Bfys-group(a)nikhef.nl
>> https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-group
--
Carlos Vázquez Sierra
LHCb Collaboration
NIKHEF - National Institute for Subatomic Physics
https://phonebook.cern.ch/phonebook/#id=PE704221 + carlos.vazquez(a)cern.ch
Dear all,
There seems to be some problems with the mailing lists. Ignore tis if
you have seen it already.
Tomorrow we have a bfys meeting at 10. Mick will speak about rare
Lambda_b decays.Λ0b→Λe+e−
https://indico.nikhef.nl/event/939/
There's no staff meeting.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
========================================================================
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam
http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
Hi everyone,
We have received comments on our comments.
Looking through it quickly, about the large physics points: it seems that they indeed optimise S/(S+B) on MC, which is their “expected”.
They gather the TIS efficiency from Monte Carlo. I’m surprised by their very low error on the trigger efficiency in the first place (0.1%). I wonder how they assign a systematic to this TIS thing…
In the light of the winter conference deadlines, it would be nice to get back to them as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have anything else to add. I’ll try to send an answer at the end of tomorrow, or on Saturday if requested.
Good night,
Laurent
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: CERN Document Server Submission Engine <cds.support(a)cern.ch>
> Subject: LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment)
> Date: 7 March 2018 at 18:30:02 GMT+1
> To: <laurent.dufour(a)cern.ch>
>
> Dear LHCb Colleague,
> The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-007) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001
> (entitled: 'Observation of the decay $\Lambda^0_b \to \Lambda_c^+ p \bar{p} \pi^-$') has itself been commented on by Mengzhen Wang [CERN - EP/ULB] (mengzhen.wang(a)cern.ch).
>
> This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014) may be seen at
> http://cds.cern.ch/record/2307522
>
>
> Best regards,
> The CERN Document Server Server support Team