Hi

As promised, below are the comments I have collected so far.

Cheers,
Greg

abstract: "with unprecedented purity" - is the purity really unprecedented compared to the B factory measurements?
12: space before footnote
20: "more compatible with the SM" - this is vague, please be more quantatitive
17-33: mention average of Belle measurements?
40-41: it makes no sense to list the absence of backgrounds with leptons as an advantage, considering that in exchange you inevitably select a new background with a higher rate.
47: "the kinematics of the decay can be determined" - you should add something along the lines of "up to two quadratic ambiguities". Overall the resolution on the decay kinematics isn't much different to the muonic mode, this sentence gives the wrong impression
98-100: here you make it sound like we use an inclusive D0 trigger - suggest "with a D0 -> K pi decay"
119: is organized -> proceeds
123: B-> D** tau nu also has the same vertex topology as the signal
128: remove then
Figure 1: please use the same figure as the PRL
135: before showing -> and in ... is shown
140: extremely -> very
154: remove "exclusive"
Figure 3: remove "on data"
162: has to be -> is
168: Figure 12 is much too far away to refer to here
174: remove "one"
195-196: The D*3pi candidate is rejected if any such track is found.
203: This sample isn't equivalent to the signal for the isolation, due to the different vertex topology (one vs two vertices the track can be added to).
214: remove "enough" and "it is known that".
215: we do not understand "even in the presence of underlying events"
219: define "around"
220: +", as it is known that no neutral particle is emittted in this decay."
220: MeV / c^2
226: remove it
229: "misidentification probability less than 17%" is misleading - event-by-event this isn't true
238: remove 2x very
246: The -> All
247: should clarify that this doesn't include the MVA?
262: two two-fold ambiguities
281: You should clarify that this works for a subset of background with B -> D* Ds(*), not B -> D* D X
282: extra->additional
Figure 6: passing the signal selection
296: discriminate *the* signal from backgrounds
311: justify why these four - most important variables?
331: D*- meson
Figure 10,11: not great in B&W
Figure 12: Please do this for the cut value you actually use, otherwise it is misleading. Do the values you get here agree with your fit results? If not, then this is meaningless. Also, would be clearer as a table
 footnote: the one -> that
Table 2: state that no BDT cut is applied to D*3pi
349: double charm needs to be defined, it isn't used in 3.3 or Figure 12
354 no hyphen between Ds+ and meson
362: Only (measured / known / large) source of rho0 mesons
365: stray bracket after fig 13
367: chares in eta and eta' decays
372: D*-
376: out of -> from
377-8: charges
382: rho0 and rho+, or only rho0?
385: no hyphen between 3pi and non-resonant
388: remove comma after precisely
392: what does "sensitivity relies only" mean
396: ?
402-407: this all seems to vague
415: D*- or the Ds+ *mesons*
422: avoid the linebreak across the decay
423: insert k in the equation
Table3: align +- within columns
429: D*- meson, 3pi system.
430: denoted as WS, for wrong charge
454: write eight and four as words
Table 5: why mix "combinatoric" and B1B2
461: why use 0.11
461: of the number of D**tau nu decay candidates to the signal decays
463-464: "corrected for using the relative efficiencies" isn't clear
461-488: these are all B-> D* D() X *decays*, with yields not numbers.
491: 2x candidates->decays
493: "two main drivers" is informal
497-498: limited size of the simulation samples used to build the templates
502: may now be filled
Figure 17: label which BDT bin is which in the plots, include individual plots in additional material
508: state up front something like "the statistical (and systematic?) contributions to the total uncertainty are determined by"
508: obtained->determined
Table 6: align +-
516: B0 signal peak
Figure 19: the two resolution components are too correlated to show individually
520: remove candidates
527: B0
531: candidates on -> decays in
538-541: discuss the tau branching fraction uncertainties, move most of 560-565 here
541: ??
543: hit multiplicity in the scintillating pad detector -> event multiplicity
585: add charges
608-609: this isn't clear - which fit variables?
footnote 4: why here?
617:618: explain and motivate a bit more the difference in treatment between Ds and D+,0
8.3: this repeats 497-507
651: repeat of 541-549
663: vertex position uncertainty?
678-680: please use the same number of significant figures for the uncertainties
711: remove "statistical"
712 and used to measure the


On 08/28/2017 04:50 PM, Greg wrote:

Hi

I'll send what I have to the list once I have it typed up, probably early-ish tomorrow.

Cheers,
Greg


On 08/28/2017 04:35 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:

Hi all,

For completeness: I passed an annotated copy to Greg, so people at Nikhef will not enjoy reading my comments before they are on CDS #irony. I also sent physics questions directly, as I wanted them addressed before the PRL is out. It's at https://cds.cern.ch/record/2280899?ln=en

Cheers,

Patrick


On 28/08/17 16:11, Greg wrote:

Hi all

I am indeed collecting comments, sorry for the lack of communication. I'd like to send our comments on Wednesday, so could anyone intending to comment send them to me by the end of tomorrow.

Cheers,
Greg

On 08/16/2017 05:14 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:

Hi all,

Unsurprisingly the R_Dstar PRD that goes with the PRL is also assigned to us. I presume Greg will continue collecting comments.

Cheers,

Patrick



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-027, Measurement of the $\mathcal{B}(B^0 \to D^{\ast-} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau})$ branching fraction using three-prong $\tau$ decays
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:02:05 +0000
From: fergus.wilson@stfc.ac.uk
To: lhcb-general@cern.ch
CC: LHCb-PAPER-2017-027-reviewers@cern.ch


Dear Colleagues,

A draft paper is available for your comments. Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group (see below)!

Title           : Measurement of the $\mathcal{B}(B^0 \to D^{\ast-} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau})$ branching fraction using three-prong $\tau$ decays

Journal         : PRD
Contact authors : Guy_Wormser, Antonio_Romero, Concezio_Bozzi
Reviewers       : Konstantinos_Petridis (chair), Michael_McCann, Marcello_Rotondo
EB reviewer     : Roberta_Santacesaria
EB readers      : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman
Analysis note   : ANA-2015-045
Deadline        : 30-Aug-2017
e-group         : lhcb-paper-2017-017-reviewers
Link            : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2279948
Authors         : LHCb
Twiki           : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/BToXTauNu3Prong

The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments:
EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland
Zurich__Switzerland
Ruprecht-Karls-Universitaet_Heidelberg__Germany
NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands
Frascati__Italy
Manchester__United_Kingdom

Please send any comments via the CDS system. 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_board/default.html

Best regards,
  Fergus

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fergus Wilson, PPD & CERN, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot,
Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK. Tel: +44-(0)1235 445259  Fax: +44-(0)1235 445672
CERN Tel: +41-22 76 77379 Skype: ferguswilson5259


_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics



_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics

-- 
========================================================================
 Patrick Koppenburg                                   Nikhef, Amsterdam
 http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact


_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics



_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics