Hi Niels,

My couple of cents.

- The dataset used (2011+2012 / 3fb-1) is never mentioned besides in the abstract.
- l.81 ‘to avoid biases’. you mean to check for overtraining?
- l.98 Do you constrain the tails of the 2xCB? It seems a bit overly modelled for such a low signal yield. Wouldn’t a single Gauss do the job?
- chap.4: What shape do you use for the combinatorial background?
- l.110 fix ‘<‘ and ‘>’ in latex
- l.120 ‘aforementioned samples’: you only mention the PID D* sample, what sample do you use to correct the tracking efficiencies?
- Fig.3: Could you project the individual components (DCB/fermi function/asymmetric gauss) to the fit? And change the line color to something other than black?
- l.155 you claim there is lack of knowledge of the signal kinematics, hence you integrate over the full efficiency dalitz plane. Are the MC decay models in BcVegPy not sufficient?
Is this the ‘modeling’ uncertainty in the table? It seems to be one of the dominant sources. 

Cheers,
Jacco


On 05 Feb 2016, at 11:24 , Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:

Hi Niels,

Here are mine.

Physics: you use two samples and hence only half of the data for training. Could you have gained more with n-folding?

L.138: do you believe these two acceptances within the uncertainties you give? You then re-use these statistical uncertainties as systematic. I am sure Pythia gets the \Bc/\Bu production ratios more wrong than that. Have you calibrated to the \Bc production paper? There should be a systematic coming from this calibration.

First paragraph: lacks a bit of structure. It's a collection of facts, but the reader is wondering what is relevant and how it's connected to what you measure.
L.2: spurious space before footnote. Move footnote to L.66, where you need it.
Fig.1: extracted -> determined.
L.79: events -> candidates
L.91 and elsewhere : Fig.~\ref{...}
L.110: spurious !
L.122: each candidate, depending on its location in the ...
L.126: I think <a> is more commeon to mean average than \overline{a}. Or just write "average of ... on the ROI". Generally there's a lot of maths that could be turned into words.
L.140-144: This collection of numbers is somewhat boring. Is it needed?
Systematics : you should explain in words how these numbers are obtained. Maybe Section 5 and 6 could be merged, as you talk about corrections in both.
Table 1: 3 -> 3.0.
L.167: @ -> at
[2] $B_c$

Cheers,

Patrick

On 05/02/16 11:07, Niels Tuning wrote:


Dear all,

Please send me your comments by Wednesday morning.
(I attach already my comments, with Wouters coments on the J/psi constraints already added.).

My main points are below; let me know if you know the answers already...

Cheers, Niels

General
-------
* Given the similarities with the Bc->KKpi analysis, was it considered
  to merge the two analysis in one paper?

Questions
---------
1) L.11 Is there a paper you can refer to concerning the sensitivity to the Beyond the Standard Model physics?

2) L.70/71 We do not understand what the different production fractions
have to do with the fiducial cuts?

3) L.167 We tried to get a back-of-the-envelop limit:
if you measure 0 events, then the upper limit is ~4 events?
Then we get the limit : (eff_u/eff_c)*(4/1644)*BR(B+) = 6 x 10^-9,
rather than 3.6 x 10^-8 ?

4) L.167 Did you use the J/psi mass constraint and/or known J/psi lineshape to achieve optimal sensitivity in the Rp^J/psi limit?

5) Fig.5 Why would you plot p-values for negative Rp values ?




On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Dear all,

We have a paper for Nikhef to comment on.
Please volunteer to introduce it.
We may discuss it after Vasileios' presentation
on Friday 5 February.

Best regards,
 Tjeerd

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:07:00 +0000
From: George Lafferty <george.lafferty@manchester.ac.uk>
To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch>
Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2016-001,
   Search for $B_c$ decays to the $p \bar{p}\pi$ final state
Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:08:36 +0100
Resent-From: <lhcb-general-dynamic@cern.ch>

Dear Colleagues,

A draft paper is available for your comments:

Title           : Search for $B_c$ decays to the $p \bar{p}\pi$ final state

Journal         : PLB
Contact authors : Adlene_Hicheur
Reviewers       : Jibo_He (chair), 
                  Lucio_Anderlini
EB reviewer     : Brian_Meadows
EB readers      : David_Ward, Justine_Serrano
Analysis note   : ANA-2015-035
Deadline        : 12-Feb-2016
e-group         : lhcb-paper-2016-001-reviewers
Link            : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2127555
Authors         : LHCb 
Twiki           : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/BcToPPbarPi

The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments:
LAPP__Annecy-Le-Vieux__France
Tsinghua_University__China
Roma_La_Sapienza__Roma__Italy
PUC-Rio__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil
EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland
NIKHEF__Netherlands


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_boa
rd/default.html

Best regards,
George 



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