In fact, I just read the paper and I don't immediately (more then 10 minutes staring) understand the method that they use (using probability generating functions). Is this method for tot X-dection new for this paper? I believe that the previous paper [ref 15] uses a more conventional method. If it was checked that the more conventional method gives results that are (more or less) consistent, I'm happy to approve it. Phrased otherwise: how did they check that is not nonsense that comes out of their PDGs? - marcel
On 1 February 2018 at 13:45, Patrick Koppenburg patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:
Dear all,
I read the draft this morning. I paste below my comments.
I encourage people interested in statistics to have a look. The unfolding procedure is quite involved.
Cheers,
Patrick
#==================================================
Dear Alvaro, Michael,
Congratulations for the well written paper and the important "EMTF" result. It's always a pleasure to read papers written by former EB chairs.
Physics:
- You say it's a Poisson distribution. Is it? Can you show it?
- We are surprised there is no additional material. Some distributions
would help showing this at conferences.
General:
- In L.49 and 123 you use the concept of "run" without defining it.
Different experiments have different definitions of what that is. Maybe worth adding that a run is a data set taken with stable conditions, and amounts to at most one hour.
Line-by-line: Abstract: We think it would be more natural to move the sentence about the statistical uncertainty after that explaining what the uncertainties are. L.1: This sentence is long. Consider splitting it. L.11: Add a paragraph break here. L.14: "in the lab" is jargon. Do you mean "in laboratory conditions", "in the laboratory frame" or both? L.18: remove "also". We suggest to add here that LHCb is unique in covering 2<eta<5 (true?). L.20: If you follow the suggestion above, there's no need to repeat the eta range. L.36: "trigger line" is jargon. What about "based on unbiased triggers"? L.37: "but accept those..." is a bit out of place. We think the sentence is clearer without it. L.43: B -> magnetic L.44: remove "about" L.71: dimensional L.74: allows to is not good English L.78: remove "then" L.88: This sentence is long. Consider splitting it. L.102: single -> only (?). detector-related L.129: we usually write Ref., but that may not be a rule (also 225) L.140-1: remove "systematic" twice. We know you discuss systematics here. L.144: extracting -> determining L.148-151: These two sentences are in the wrong order. First state there is a problem and then explain you assign a systematic uncertainty to cover it. L.155: Remove "Careful", all we do is careful. L.166: generator-level. Remove Monte-Carlo Table 1: We suggest to align source on the left. Add a row with the total. L.170: "efficiencies to be seen" sounds strange. Detection efficiencies? Table 2: add a space before (A) and (B) L.203: remove "one" Fig.2: not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics. L.225: error -> uncertainty L.228: space before 3 Fig.2: not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics. Fig.2: All mathematical terms should be in italics. The colour coding is a bit unnatural. Following the logo colours would help speakers in talks (who are likely to add logos on their slides). ATLAS is blue, CMS is light blue/orange, alice Red/Black, totem light red. Refs: most arxiv refs are missing.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 01/31/2018 10:33 AM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Dear all,
A new paper is assigned to us. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2302458
Please read it and send comments. I am looking for a volunteer to collect these comments, please let me know.
I also remind you of the bfys meeting Friday, with Niels as speaker.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam https://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics