Dear Niels,
Here are a few more
L.15: write as [5-8] L.51: "one visible" looks like the value is exact. L.135: Just to be sure, you first fit the Y(1S), then you fix the width and refit the Y(2S) and Y(3S)? Or you run a simultaneous fit that is 99% dominated by the Y(1S)? Fig.1 (righ) is too small while Fig2 is too big. Why not swap them? Then you'd have all masses in Fig.1 and the lifetime in full width in Fig.2 L.153: 0.7--2.2% (long dashes) Eq.3: why don't you also give the b cross section in the acceptance, i.e. without alpha_4pi? Fig.11: why does the point at 7 TeV have much larger errors? [40] collaboration
One question about strategy: Our first bin is 2<y<2.5 (as in the 7 TeV paper). CMS recently published their 7(!) TeV Y cross sections with a last bin at 2<y<2.4. Would it be useful to also have results for 7 and 8 TeV to be able to compare like to like?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 03/28/2013 03:35 PM, Niels Tuning wrote:
Dear all,
Atached is my list of comments for the J/psi and Y paper. Please let me know by tomorrow evening if yoyu have other comments.
Cheers, Niels
PS. My main points are:
Main comments:
- L.47-49 This formulation is not completely logical? A direct
connection is suggested between the amount of pile-up and the number of filled bunches, which are only indirectly related. How about simply: "During this period the average number of interactions per crossing varied."
- L.82-87 Perhaps it is better to refer to the vector meson as 'V',
rather than 'P', since many people use 'P' for pseudo-scalar.
- L.190 You use an uncertainty of 8.6% from BR(b->J/psiX)=(1.16 +-
0.10)%, based on LEP data, if we understand correctly? It is a large contribution, and it is not so easy to trace this number in the PDG. It would be good to quote the PDG, and probably also the Delphi paper Phys.Lett. B341 (1994) 109-122 , which is the most precise, to indicate this comes from Z-decays.
- L.220/221 Why did you choose not to assign a systematic uncertainty
to the extrapolation to 4pi ?
- L.235-237 You use the notation B^iS. The explicit notation BR(Y(1S)),
BR(Y(2S)) and BR(Y(3S)) is more clear, still dense enough for the figure axes. The notation R^iS/1S refers to only two variants, R^2S/1S and R^3S/1S and could also be used instead of the 'iS', and R^(2S,3S)/1S on the axis labels.
- L.236 Add '(corr)' and '(uncorr)' behind the errors in the result, to
make it clear it is not (stat) and (syst) as usual. L.239 In fact, what do you mean with 'correlated between bins' ? As this result is the integrated result, there are no correlations between bins? Presumably this comes form adding the binned result in quadrature? Perhaps this can be clarified with a sentence?
- The supplementary Fig.13 could also fit nicely in the body of the paper?
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Niels Tuning wrote:
Dear all,
I am collecting comments from our group on the J/psi, Y paper; https://svnweb.cern.ch/cern/wsvn/lhcbdocs/Status/PAPER-2013-016.html
The deadline is Saturday 30 March, sorry for the late notice.
Cheers, Niels
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics