bfys-physics

bfys-physics@nikhef.nl

520 discussions

[Bfys-physics] Fwd: referees' report
by Patrick Koppenburg 23 Mar '17

23 Mar '17

Dear all, The Bs->mumu paper got very positive reviews from PRL. For you enjoyment I single out question 5 from Ref A: > 5. The uncertainties on the data points in Figs. 1 and 2 should > probably be mentioned in the captions. How are they calculated? The > uncertainties are asymmetric in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 (top), and appear to > follow what one would expect from poisson variations of the data. In > that case, given that there are a number of empty bins, shouldn't one > also include upper error bars for the bins where N=0? Then, in Fig. 2 > (bottom), the uncertainties are symmetric, so what do the > uncertainties represent here? Good we invited Ivo. But I think we need a reference for what RooFit actually does. Cheers, Patrick -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: referees' report Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:44:11 +0100 From: Matteo Rama <matteo.rama(a)cern.ch> To: lhcb-paper-2017-001-reviewers <lhcb-paper-2017-001-reviewers(a)cern.ch> Dear RC, all, please find below the replies from the PRL referees. The reports are quite positive. A bit surprisingly, the referee B's report (attached) does not contain any specific question or remark on the paper. Cheers, Matteo -------- Messaggio Inoltrato -------- Oggetto: Your_manuscript LC16542 Aaij Data: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:55:57 -0400 Mittente: prl(a)aps.org Rispondi-a: prl(a)aps.org A: matteo.rama(a)pi.infn.it Re: LC16542 Measurement of the B 0 s rightarrow mu + mu - branching fraction and effective lifetime and search for B 0 rightarrow mu + mu - decays by R. Aaij, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, et al. Dear Dr. Rama, The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees. Acceptance of your paper for publication is likely, but we first ask you to consider carefully the appended comments. With your resubmittal, please include a summary of changes made and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms. Yours sincerely, Robert Garisto Editor Physical Review Letters Email:prl@aps.org http://journals.aps.org/prl/ IMPORTANT: Editorial "Review Changes" http://journals.aps.org/prl/edannounce/PhysRevLett.111.180001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of Referee A -- LC16542/Aaij ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more than 20 years, the elusive decay of the Bs meson into a pair of muons has been searched for in earnest by a number of high energy physics experiments. From the beginning, this was seen as an important channel to search for signs of "new physics", be it supersymmetry or something else. Limits, and ultimately measurements, of this channel put strong constraints on theories beyond the standard model. Along with the failure to find new physics in other searches so far, the measurement of the Bs to mu+mu- branching fraction became even more important. Just two years ago, the CMS and LHCb collaborations reported the first observation of this decay in a tour de force analysis of their combined data. With more than 250 citations in just two years, this is one of the most cited publications by the experiments. An observation by a single experiment is now reported for the first time with the present measurement. In addition, an interesting excess in the search for B0 to dimuons is not confirmed in the present paper, and the first measurement of the Bs effective lifetime is shown. Both of these results constrain new physics in a relevant way and are important results on their own. There is no doubt that the paper proposed here is one of the currently most important result by the LHCb experiment, and that the result has wide implications on high energy physics in particular, but that it will also attract attention among non-specialists since the result touches upon some of the most fundamental questions of physics. The paper is well written and at an appropriate level for the subject. There are sections in the middle part which are somewhat difficult to grasp for the non-expert, e.g. regarding the discussion of the various background contributions, but I believe the level of detail is about right, and sufficient references are given for further reading on the technical details. In the end, this is a rather complex measurement of a phenomenon at the 10^-9 level, so one cannot expect all questions to be answered in a short letter. The relevant details however are given, such that the reader can have confidence in the scientific correctness of the results. I only have a few, relatively minor specific comments: 1. This is just about clarity: About the two normalization channels, the text states "The normalization factors combining the two normalization channels are...". For the reader not familiar with such analyses, shouldn't one specify how this "combination" is statistically performed? 2. Regarding the B0 -> mu+mu- limit, the text explains that "an upper limit... is set using the CLs method". There's a vast variety of "methods" that people call "CLs method" (there's "LEP style CLs" and "LHC style CLs" and so on), which for example differ in the way nuisance parameters are treated etc. I assume the authors are not exactly using what has been described in the given reference from 2002, so I think at least half a sentence of additional explanation is necessary. 3. Just after that, the model dependence of the Bs branching fraction measurement is discussed, leading to a non-negligible additional uncertainty. However, this additional uncertainty seems to be neither included in the final result (one could write it as B +- stat. +- exp.syst. +- model dep.), nor is it mentioned in the abstract or summary. Because it is important for the interpretation of the result in other contexts, why not at least mention it in the abstract, summary, or result? 4. The discussion of the lifetime fit uncertainties should be improved a bit. The text states that "The accuracy of the fit... is estimated using a large number of simulated experiments with properties similar to those found in the data". This is fuzzy and unclear - what are "similar properties"? One has to guess that some unknown properties were varied in some unknown way by some unknown amount. It would help to be more explicit here. 5. The uncertainties on the data points in Figs. 1 and 2 should probably be mentioned in the captions. How are they calculated? The uncertainties are asymmetric in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 (top), and appear to follow what one would expect from poisson variations of the data. In that case, given that there are a number of empty bins, shouldn't one also include upper error bars for the bins where N=0? Then, in Fig. 2 (bottom), the uncertainties are symmetric, so what do the uncertainties represent here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Report of Referee B -- LC16542/Aaij ---------------------------------------------------------------------- See Attachment: lc16542_report_1_b.pdf

1 0

[Bfys-physics] REMINDER: Comments on CONF-2017-003, Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays
by Maarten van Veghel 17 Mar '17

17 Mar '17

Dear b-vissers, Just a gentle reminder for everyone who has not yet send comments (thank you who did!) of the upcoming deadline (end of today) to pass me the comments for CONF-2017-003 regarding the (really interesting) RK* measurement. Despite that the CONF note will not be published I encourage everyone to read it and comment, the comments will be useful for the upcoming paper and especially physics comments should come as soon as possible. Tomorrow at the bfys meeting I will give a short overview about the analysis (10min). Yours, Maarten "the electron man"

2 2

Re: [Bfys-physics] BsMuMu paper on the arXiv
by Marcel Merk 17 Mar '17

17 Mar '17

Thanks Siim; the congrats also extend to you!! On 17 March 2017 at 13:36, Siim Tolk <siim.tolk(a)cern.ch> wrote: > Hi all, > Good news indeed - we can proudly present it at Moriond, Mick > > This afternoon we will raise a glass at Nikhef to you guys! > > Proost! > Siim > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Siim Tolk > Herchel Smith Fellow > Cavendish Laboratory > CERN, LHCb > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > On 17 Mar 2017, at 13:21, Marcel Merk <marcel.merk(a)nikhef.nl> wrote: > > Hoi Mick et al. > Once more congrats with this fantastic achievement and milestone. This > afternoon we will raise a glass at Nikhef to you guys! > Cheers, > - Marcel > > > On 17 March 2017 at 11:25, Mick Mulder <mmulder(a)nikhef.nl> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Our paper on BsMuMu just appeared on the arXiv: >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05747. >> >> These are our results: >> >> 1. *BF(B0s→μ+μ−)=(3.0±0.6+0.3−0.2)×10−9* , where the first uncertainty >> is statistical and the second systematic. This is a 7.8 sigma observation >> and the first single experiment one as a result. >> >> 2. The first measurement of the B0s→μ+μ− effective lifetime, *τ(B0s→μ+μ−)=2.04±0.44±0.05 >> ps*. >> >> 3. No evidence for B0→μ+μ−, so a stringent limit is put at >> *BF(B0→μ+μ−)<3.4×10−10*. >> >> All results are consistent with the Standard Model. >> >> *Thanks to Jennifer, Siim, Flavio and Antonio*, who helped from the >> Nikhef side to obtain this result! >> >> Cheers, >> Mick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bfys-physics mailing list >> Bfys-physics(a)nikhef.nl >> https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics >> >> > >

1 0

[Bfys-physics] BsMuMu paper on the arXiv
by Mick Mulder 17 Mar '17

17 Mar '17

Hi all, Our paper on BsMuMu just appeared on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05747. These are our results: 1. *BF(B0s→μ+μ−)=(3.0±0.6+0.3−0.2)×10−9* , where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. This is a 7.8 sigma observation and the first single experiment one as a result. 2. The first measurement of the B0s→μ+μ− effective lifetime, *τ(B0s→μ+μ−)=2.04±0.44±0.05 ps*. 3. No evidence for B0→μ+μ−, so a stringent limit is put at *BF(B0→μ+μ−)<3.4×10−10*. All results are consistent with the Standard Model. *Thanks to Jennifer, Siim, Flavio and Antonio*, who helped from the Nikhef side to obtain this result! Cheers, Mick

2 1

[Bfys-physics] LHCb Nikhef (bfys) Meeting (17 March 2017)
by Patrick Koppenburg 16 Mar '17

16 Mar '17

Dear all, We have a bfys meeting tomorrow. https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=577 Maarten will present the RK* result. Although the CONF note has been killed (we now aim for a paper in April), we should still comment on it. Then Sean will sing in honour of St Patrick's name Cheers, Patrick -- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.ch/address.html

1 0

[Bfys-physics] Tr : Conference report circulation: CONF-2017-003, Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays
by Patrick Koppenburg 14 Mar '17

14 Mar '17

3 4

[Bfys-physics] CP violation in C-suppressed charm decay
by Laurent Dufour 08 Mar '17

08 Mar '17

Dear Robert, Via another measurement, it has become accessible for us to measure the CP violation in the Cabibbo suppressed Ds -> K pi pi with an guestimated 0.6% precision, using only Run 2 data thus far. We are now wondering what possible interesting physics there could be here and what we can expect. We would probably give separate numbers for prominent regions of the Dalitz plot, e.g. the K+ rho0 mode. I know there was some interest in these modes back in the days of the delta-acp excitement. I’m very interested in what you think about this mode, so it would be great to get a coffee with you and Marcel some time tomorrow. Would the morning coffee at 10 work for you? Thanks a lot. Cheers, Laurent

1 1

[Bfys-physics] Next bfys talks - round 3
by Patrick Koppenburg 07 Mar '17

07 Mar '17

Dear all, We are about to start round 3 of bfys talks. This time we also kindly request post-docs to let us know what they are doing. Staff members are also invited if they wish. I created a doodle at http://doodle.com/poll/gzak6cf7k2r2hsqh covering up to end of June. You will note that one slot is next week, as it has recently become available (we have backup solutions for that, but I still include it). Please fill your availability. There's no guarantee you will get a talk during that period as there are particularly few Fridays in April and May. I will give priority to those who have not spoken for a while, or are leaving soon. Thanks Patrick -- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html

1 1

[Bfys-physics] v2r2
by Patrick Koppenburg 24 Feb '17

24 Feb '17

Hi all, For those interested in reading the paper before it gets on arxiv (and comment and get their name into the acknowledgements), please take v2r2 attached at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=574 Thanks Patrick -- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html

1 0

[Bfys-physics] Tr : NNPDF3.1 talk at LHCb meeting
by Patrick Koppenburg 23 Feb '17

23 Feb '17

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
52
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

bfys-physics