Dear Tjeerd,

I send my apologies for the Bfys meeting which unfortunately clashes with analysis week.

I have an issue with Fig 1a. I find the fit very poor, which may be due to a wrong model. If you look between 5.55 and 5.6 GeV, the data undershoots the fit. I am also missing a partially reconstructed background from B(s)->J/psi eta X (where X could be a K0) below 5.2 GeV. Including this could make the uncertain B peak much larger. I see no mention of partially reconstructed backgrounds in the systematic section (the ana note is also quiet). But since the Bd->J/psieta BF is known, why not fix it in the fit?

Similarly in Fig 3 they include the J/psiK* reflection, but ignore partial backgrounds from B+->J/psiK2pi, Bs->J/psiPhipipi... and where does the very narrow shape of the K* come from?

Details:
Line 22: or a pipi system
Line 70-71: the ) should go before tails, but I think quantum em can be removed.
Line 83: "As previously mentioned, the" : remove
Line 88: I find decay times in mum puzzling. What about "the decay time of the... excess of 150 mum/c."? (tau is not needed)
Line 130: _a_ partial
Line 152: simulation -> simulated data
Line 165: a B0 signal
Line 169: nominal value [19]
Line 196: which acceptance? Time? Geometry?
Line 213+ : Is it obvious that arXiv:1204.1735 (hep-ph) has no effect on the two Bs ratios?

Cheers,

Patrick



On 01/25/2013 03:05 PM, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

-- 
========================================================================
 Patrick Koppenburg                                   Nikhef, Amsterdam
 http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html