Hi again,
Here are my comments on the Ks paper (I was on the RC of the 1/fb version, so curious to see how it evolved).
Cheers,
Patrick
-------------------
Dear Giacomo, Jessica,
Congratulations for this new kaon physics result. There will be
some work needed to make that a paper, and we make many comments
to ease the way.
Physics: In Fig 6b you have 3 candidates around 550 while your pdf
expects a tiny number here. You must be missing a component.
Line-by-line:
Title page: The LHCb logo is misplaced. I also had that depending
on whether I was compiling with an old or new latex version. Try
playing with the vertical spacing commands in the title page.
Title: I am not fond of "Updated" in titles (wrt what?) I no have
better suggestion though.
Abstract: Collider. ... based on a sample corresponding to
1\invfb...
L.4: by the small amount of \CP violation
L.7,9: I would put the refs behind the BF values.
L.21: using $pp$ collision data collected in 2011 corresponding to
an integrated luminosity of 1\invfb.
L.25: only occurence of "we"
L.62: The VELO is the only detector that does not have a forward
geometry.
L.66: at the hardware level
L.72-78: This is confusing. You seem to define TOS as meaning
trigger in signal at the hardware level. Now you use the word for
HLT. I suggest you avoid the use of TOS in L.75
L.90: is the ideal -> is taken as
L.103: Use \Lz
Fig.2: x axis: Reconstructed K_S^0 mass
L.115: dominated by -> highest in. But are you really speaking
of trigger efficiencies or fraction if the data coming from these
trigger requirements? That's not the same.
L.116: You use TIS and TOS to have different meanings, though
clearly defined in the text. I am still worried about confusion
for poor external readers.
L.123: why not "No Bias"?
L.124: s_\text{NB}. You need to explain why a prescale comes with
an uncertainty. That looks like we do not know what we are doing
in the trigger.
L.140: is it needed to say that combinatorial background is the
dominant background?
L.154: remove carefully (everything we do is so)
L.163: do not use p and \pt as nouns
L.176: Use roman for acronyms. You seem to confuse the classifier
(that is software) with its output (a number). Just say BDT output
to mean the latter.
L.185: add charges (you imply cc)
L.190: "the pion calibration sample"? It was not mentioned before
and it's calibration for what?
L.191: B->J/psiK candidates (or decays). Say that
J/psi->mumu. Same comment as above for "the calibration".
L.192: tag-and-probe
L.193: TIS at which level?
L.207: and of the expected number of background candidates $B$.
L.210: reweighted -> weighted
L.214: 429--504
L.232: remove length.
L.234: spurious "expected" (?)
Eq.2: trig, sel and BDT should be in roman.
Table 1: error -> uncertainty
L.257: fraction of signal decays (?)
L.262: you mean the full LHCb simulation or just Pythia?
Table 2: Suggest to centre columns. Numbers can be aligned with
\phantom{0}, ro smarter packages.
L.299, 305: errors -> uncertainties
L.304: events -> decays
L.311: 470--600
L.315: Such -> This
L.319: remove events. Avoid single sentence paragraphs.
Fig.6: The labels on the pull plots are unreadable.
[4] why such an old version?
[25] why this even older version?
[26] put initials in front (you probably have {} around the whole
while it should only be {\'\i} for Martinez.
Cheers,
Patrick
Hi all,
Reviews always come in pairs. Here's a CONF with deadline on 12 September.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Conference report circulation: CONF-2016-012, Updated search for the decay $K^0_{\rm S} \to \mu^+\mu^-$ Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:36:34 +0200 From: Michael Schmelling <Michael.Schmelling@mpi-hd.mpg.de> To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch> CC: lhcb-conf-2016-012-reviewers <lhcb-conf-2016-012-reviewers@cern.ch>
Dear colleagues, A conference report is available for your comments: Team leaders, please check the reading responsibilities of your institute. Title: Updated search for the decay $K^0_{\rm S} \to \mu^+\mu^-$ Contact authors: Giacomo_Graziani, Jessica_Prisciandaro Reviewers: Xuhao_Yuan (chair), Patrizia_De_Simone, Brian_Meadows (EB) Analysis note: ANA-2016-053 Deadline: 12-Sep-2016 e-group: lhcb-conf-2016-012-reviewers Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2213607 Twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/KsToMuMu2012 Institutes requested to submit comments on the report: Oxford__United_Kingdom NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil LAPP__Annecy-Le-Vieux__France After the deadline, the reviewers are charged with approving the report for public release, once they are satisfied that all comments have been taken into account. You can find all reports 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 Best regards, Michael -- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html