Dear Tjeerd,

Here are my comments on the Lb paper. It needs a serious revision...

Physics: You seem to be constraining the signal to be positive. How do you then average the L and D samples? E.g. in Fig., the upward fluctuation at the Lb mass in D could be balanced by a negative fluctuation in L.

General: The introduction needs a revision. Take the first sentence; it's grammar implies a "concept" is a "study". Try to make it simpler. In L.4-5 yo define physical particles "by a mixing". We don't think mixing defines particles. Generally, the theoretical introduction in L.2-19 is interesting but not relevant to the paper as you do not measure any of these angles nor put limits. You can shorten it a lot.
L.274-284: This explanation should go to the introduction, so you can quickly refer to it in the conclusion.

In Section 5 you make our simulation look really bad. We _do_model L0, we _can_ measure the reco efficiency. The question is whether you rely on it or not. Please rephrase.
L.231-4: If the PIDCalib uncertainties are smaller than this difference, this is overestimating the systematic. If they are larger, it is potentially underestimating it due to fluctuations. Either way: Use PIDCalib uncertainties, not the difference.

Section 6: I now understand that not using FC would be flip-floppping. But why can't I get 68% CL intervals?

Why do you have paragraph vertically separated without indents?

Title page: You write end of the paper, but you put the authors at the beginning.

L.24: 53 -> fifty
L.26: why is the b->s transition "standard"?
L.27: there are _always_ extra Feynman diagrams. Please explain why they are relevant. L30-31: this is obvious.
Fig.1: usually the spectator is put at the bottom. Move quark labels so they do not touch lines. B0 should be centered between d and bbar. In c the top of "d" is missing.
L.68: the PV -> a PV (new template)
L.83: Label your Ks and L as Downstream (D) and Long (L) as we have done in many previous papers.
L.82 and 84: event -> candidate
L.89-90: explain that else the efficiency would be lower
L.94: has this DIRA cut any effect once DTF is applied? If not remove.
L.95-113: There are too many instances of "required to". Rephrase.
L.130: MeV/c^2
L.140: Do you check the 2 BTDs are consistent?
L.144: event -> candidate
L.146: explain how you determine the combinatoric background.
L.154: highest ET photon is kept.
Fig.2: Label with L and D. In all figures remove "in the 2011 and 2012 data".
L.164-166: Is that needed?
L.168 and many other places: Number of signal events -> signal yield (do not label them as events)
L.171 and 173: events -> candidates. This sentence is a bit repetitive.
L.193 and Eq.4: Isn't is just B(K0->pi^+pi^-)?
L.193: remove from the Particle...
Table 1: replace a,b,c,d by the corresponding decay. tot should be in roman.
L.200: One of the dominant -> the largest.
L.205-6: Isn't this obvious?
L.229: statistics in the data -> size of data
L.269: write the limit rather than explaining how it's obtained.
[12] Fr\`ere
[19] Use the 2014 PDG

Cheers,

Patrick

On 27/03/15 14:49, Tjeerd Ketel wrote: