Dear all,
I will not be able to attend the bfys meeting on Friday. Here's my input for the paper, which I find generally nicely written.
General: We find your treatment of the resolution confusing. In L.98 you say you fix to the simulation (implying the simulation is OK, but not saying so). In line 122 you imply this should be scaled by a factor 1.1. Why is that not the default fit then?
Title: why is Xib upright here and nowhere else? L.2: The Xib stats... (bsd). It took some time to understand what you mean. As the sentence is written it sounds like bsu and bds are an isodoublet each. Suggest to rewrite as "isodoublets composed of a Xibz (bsu) and a Xibm (bsd) state. L.6-7: here it sounds like the state is excited in the system. Re-order. L.23-25: The mass difference _is_ the isospin splitting? L.25: isposin? L.70: nearest -> any (means the same but is clearer) L.107: uncertainty -> resolution L.109-111: N/sigma_N is always smaller than the significance and is not a simple metric for it. We suggest to remove this sentence and just add ", with significance in excess of 10sigma" to the previous one. L.124: how do you remove multiple candidates? Randomly? L.126: what do you do with the fit to the wrong sign sample? L.174: move "at LHCb" to the end and change to "in the LHCb acceptance", or more generally "at the LHC in the forward acceptance"
Supplementary material: why don't you add cos\theta_h plots?
Cheers,
Patrick