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
--
============================================================ https://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppe============
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdamnb/#contact
_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics