Comments on direct CPV in charmless charged two-body B decays
Dear all,
Here are the comments I collected during the Bfys Meeting on Tuesday 8 March. I also added a few in the process of writing. Please, correct and improve the text below before Monday.
Best regards, Tjeerd -----------------------------------
Dear authors,
We like to compliment you with this nice, in some places easy and other places difficult to read, paper. Our comments are grouped in: (i) comments on the content and (ii) suggestions for the text.
(i) Comments on the content: ============================ lines 37-63: Remove the text about stripping and Table 1.
This part was not found informative for the reader, as the off-line selections supersede the stripping cuts.
Figure 2: Add "preliminary" in the figure. Increase the size of the numbers and text at the axes. Draw MC as histogram and data as filled circles.
These are supposed to be the rules. And they applies also to following figures. Question: Are the "number of events" also normalized for the data? If not, than "normalized" is not needed on the axis. The caption could start as "Inclusive data sample of ..."
lines 141-143: Do not we have 16 categories? Should not "mutually exclusive" imply more cuts in Table 4 and 5?
lines 141-162: This part is very dense in information and we easily overlooked important statements here. Maybe lines 161-162 could move to 144. Or find other ways to make this text more accessible.
Figures 6-9: Change the order of treatment to 6, 8, 9, and then 7.
It becomes clearer that ACP^RAW is the result of a simultaneous fit.
line 193: "apparent" is not so apparent from the result for the tighter cut, which is less accurate in the end.
Even before unblinding the larger uncertainty should have been apparent, isn't it? Is there an other reason why this result with tighter cuts is shown?
(ii) Suggestions for the text: ============================= Abstract: Add "(stat.)" and "(syst.)" after 0.033 and 0.008, respectively.
It is the first time that you assign double errors in this paper.
line 7 and 306: Suggestion to change "preliminary measurements" to "preliminary values"
"Preliminary" is correct. It should also appear in all figures with data in this paper. "measurement" in combination with "preliminary" is ambiguous. Other colleagues would allow for this kind of jargon.
line 8: Use decay probability "Gamma" in stead of "N", or define N here as "decay rate".
A_CP is the physics variable, not the raw asymmetry. Therefore, N is not the measured numbers of decays.
line 245: Eq.(5) Use production cross section "sigma" in stead of "N", or define N here as "production rate".
These are the only places where "N" is used, as A^raw is not defined. So the second option with "N" as "rate" is possible.
lines 10-15: Suggestion to combine 10-11 in one sentence.
This shortens the second sentence in lines 11-15.
Fig. 1 The sketch could be a drawing, if its quality is improved.
Other colleagues would only allow for this quality in a conference note.
lines 82-83: Change "tau^B_pipi" to "t_pipi". Move this "t_pipi" to "... on the lifetime of the B candidate, t_pipi, calculated under ..." Change "tau" also in Tables 2 and 3 and in Fig. 2.
"tau" should be reserved for "average lifetime" or "mean life". Here "t" is the calculated time each candidate lived from the measured decay length.
line 138: Replace "dangerous" by something less dangerous.
line 147: Change to "... statistics a second Gaussian in the signal model was not needed."
Figure 6: Use "positive charge conjugate". Add ... to the fit model "explained in the text" are also shown.
Equation (4) Could this equation be given in the introduction? Or maybe including Eqs (5) and (6) with the explanation? ACP^RAW is used in section 4, before this equation.
line 238 The entry 0.0001 seems to be very small. A factor 100 smaller than for B0s!
line 245, 259, 295, 298: Use "asymmetry" instead of "physical asymmetry".
ACP is defined in line 8 as the asymmetry. The uncorrected asymmetry is indicated by its label RAW, be it without proper definition.
Table 10: Replace "Reason" by "Systematic uncertainty". Caption, 2nd line: "The total systematic uncertainties given in the last row ..."
line 307: "The ICHEP2010 update of ACP(B0->... [15] and the CDF .... [4] are in agreement with our preliminary values."
"Current world average" is nice in a presentation, but less in a publication. "In agreement" contains more information than "can be compared". It is also the last sentence that will catch some attention.