Hi Tjeerd,
My remark about the MeV symbol is a minor one. In LHCb when using the symbol \mev the e is put closer to the V, to make it look nicer.
Cheers Jeroen
On 31 Mar, 2014, at 16:45 pm, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nlmailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Dear all,
Please, have a look at combined comments from Matthias, Jeroen, Gerco, Marcel and myself before Tuesday 20 h.
There is a remark about MeV which I did not understand myself (?????? general) and a complicated remark from Gerco which needs our detailed instructions to ask for an improvement of the text in the paper (92-94).
Best regards, Tjeerd
----- Doorgestuurd bericht van i93@nikhef.nlmailto:i93@nikhef.nl ----- Datum: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:57:36 +0200 Van: Marcel Merk <i93@nikhef.nlmailto:i93@nikhef.nl> Onderwerp: Re: [Bfys-physics] Comments PAPER-2014-014 Aan: Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nlmailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl>
Tjeerd,
Hartelijk dank voor het verwerken van de commentaren. Mijn comments zitten er al in.
groeten, - Marcel
On 31 March 2014 11:29, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nlmailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Beste Marcel, Waarschijnlijk wil je nog wat toevoegen. Stuur het dan vandaag nog rond aan bfys-physics. Groeten, Tjeerd
Comments for LHCB-PAPER-2014-0014:
General comments:
- The paper is very difficult to read without having read the BaBar/Belle publications first. This shows a lack of interest to who will be reading it.
- The "Z(4430)-" symbol should be following by a noun (i.e. Z resonance, Z peak, Z particle, Z parameter). - Similarly "Belle" should be followed by "collaboration, data or publication". - Use the LHCb template symbols style for MeV in line 13, 52 and other. ???????
Detailed comments:
- Abstract: - Replace "3 fb-1 of data" by the EB standard expression. See EB rules. Also used in line 18,
- Replace "a mass (width) of 4475 (172) MeV" by "a mass of 4475 MeV and a width of 172 MeV".
-The abstract should be more concise and several parts can be removed without missing important points: Therefore, remove "as also demonstrated using a model-independent approach", "and more precise than", "the significance of the Z(4430)- signal is overwhelming, at least 13.9 sigma, confirming the existence of this state" (This statement is superfluous as Belle has shown more than 5 sigma), "in agreement with the 3.4 sigma indication from Belle".
- Replace "more precise than the previous Belle measurement" by "more precise than the measurement of the Bell collaboration". It is not clear if "previous" refers to the last measurement of Belle or to the one-but-last measurement of Belle.
- Replace "significance is overwhelming" by "significance is high". "Evidence is overwhelming" is also possible. Also used in line 166.
- Line 12 or another place: Mention that natural units (with c=1) are used.
Line 21-22: - Replace "one fewer charged pion" by "one charged pion less". - Replace "to minimize mismodeling" by "to improve modeling". - Replace "around the Dalitz plot boundary" by "near the Dalitz plot boundary".
- Lines 27-32: How is this efficiency correction supposed to work? If I integrate over phase space to obtain the normalization, the best I can hope to achieve is that the average normalization is good. This does not (at first glance) seem to help with efficiency variations over phase space... Probably, most readers will not get the point without the Babar/Belle publications...
- Figure 1: - Move the figure after its first reference in line 72 or refer to it earlier, preferable with a description of the background distribution subtraction and efficiency distribution correction method. - Describe in the caption the superimposed curve as the distribution we expect without resonances in phi'pi. The present text is not suited for in a caption. - Make the vertical scale arbitrary by using a scale between 0 and 1.
- Line 49: Replace "freedom (ndf) equals Nbin-1 minus the number of ..." by "freedom, ndf = Nbin - Nvar, with Nvar the number of ..." Omit -1 here.
- Line 47: Replace "confidence level (CL) of the fit" by "p-value of the fit". We do not refer to a confidence region here. Also correct at other places, e.g. in line 62, 64, 77, 120, and 153.
- Line 48: How is it possible that the p-value distribution from simulated data is not consistent with flat? Please, explain better. This suggests a systematic effect which is apparently NOT simulated.
- Line 46-50: Clarify in the text for what reason toy study is done. And specify exactly which assumption is tested here. The text suggests only that we did not introduce a bug.
Figure 2: Replace "the fit variables (black data points)" by "(top) the reconstructed invariant mass squared and (bottom) the angles theta_phi' and phi".
- Line 83: Replace "suggests neglecting D-wave decays" by
"suggests that D-wave decays can be neglected".
- Line 86: Replace "p-value" by "$p$-value".
- Line 93: Please, clarify: Do we know what DeltaL distribution we expect? If not, do we fit the expected shape with a chi^2 probability distribution (with ndf floating) from toys, and use that to quantify significances in data fits?
- Lines 92-94: "We find that the simulated ?L distribution follows a ?2 PDF with ndf = 7.50 ± 0.11 (statistical error)? : what distribution is EXPECTED? IS the chi2 distribution chosen more or less phenomenologically? What is the meaning of ndf in this case? Is it just some parameter used to parametrise the ?L distribution, or is it related to something? In the next sentence the suggestion is made that it is somehow related to the number of free parameters in the Z- fit. Also, in what sense does taking ndf=8 result in a CONSERVATIVE result? Lastly, the distribution in fig. 3 doesn?t look like a chi2 distribution AT ALL!
- Line 95:
You have done toys and concluded that the effective ndf value is 7.5. Assuming 8, this is 2x the number of free parameters. But what does that mean? Is this a problem with your model? Please make this clear in the text.
Line 105: Remove "even without considering systematic uncertainties". This is not how "consistent" should be understood.
Line 107: Rewrite "float all K* masses and widths while constraining" and explain how the masses are constrained. For example, "by assigning a prior (Gaussian ?) distribution to them according to the PDG values".
- Line 117: Replace "term in Equation (2)" by "term in Eq.(2) of that paper".
- Figure 3: If space for explanations is a problem in PRL, then this trivial figure is a luxury which we could move to the added material.
- Lines 122+122: Change the differential "d" in the integrals to roman style (2x).
- Figure 4: Add the corresponding mass (or mass2) range of the 6 data points.
- Figure 5: - Please give the two Z's different colours and symbols. - Also add a legend in this plot. - Change "candidates" to "number of counts" at the axis. - Replace "data (black points) for m2phi'pi in 1.0<" by "(black points) reconstructed m2phi'pi for B0->phi'piK+ data with 1.0 <". - Replace "veto region" by "excluded".
- Line 160:
Write "Figure 5", since it starts a sentence (EB rules).
- Line 243: Change "Babar" by "BaBar".
----- Einde doorgestuurd bericht -----
From: Marcel Merk <i93@nikhef.nlmailto:i93@nikhef.nl> Subject: Re: [Bfys-physics] Comments PAPER-2014-014 Date: 31 March, 2014 11:57:36 GMT+2 To: Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nlmailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl>
Tjeerd,
Hartelijk dank voor het verwerken van de commentaren. Mijn comments zitten er al in.
groeten, - Marcel
On 31 March 2014 11:29, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nlmailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote: Beste Marcel, Waarschijnlijk wil je nog wat toevoegen. Stuur het dan vandaag nog rond aan bfys-physics. Groeten, Tjeerd
Comments for LHCB-PAPER-2014-0014:
General comments:
- The paper is very difficult to read without having read the BaBar/Belle publications first. This shows a lack of interest to who will be reading it.
- The "Z(4430)-" symbol should be following by a noun (i.e. Z resonance, Z peak, Z particle, Z parameter). - Similarly "Belle" should be followed by "collaboration, data or publication". - Use the LHCb template symbols style for MeV in line 13, 52 and other. ???????
Detailed comments:
- Abstract: - Replace "3 fb-1 of data" by the EB standard expression. See EB rules. Also used in line 18,
- Replace "a mass (width) of 4475 (172) MeV" by "a mass of 4475 MeV and a width of 172 MeV".
-The abstract should be more concise and several parts can be removed without missing important points: Therefore, remove "as also demonstrated using a model-independent approach", "and more precise than", "the significance of the Z(4430)- signal is overwhelming, at least 13.9 sigma, confirming the existence of this state" (This statement is superfluous as Belle has shown more than 5 sigma), "in agreement with the 3.4 sigma indication from Belle".
- Replace "more precise than the previous Belle measurement" by "more precise than the measurement of the Bell collaboration". It is not clear if "previous" refers to the last measurement of Belle or to the one-but-last measurement of Belle.
- Replace "significance is overwhelming" by "significance is high". "Evidence is overwhelming" is also possible. Also used in line 166.
- Line 12 or another place: Mention that natural units (with c=1) are used.
Line 21-22: - Replace "one fewer charged pion" by "one charged pion less". - Replace "to minimize mismodeling" by "to improve modeling". - Replace "around the Dalitz plot boundary" by "near the Dalitz plot boundary".
- Lines 27-32: How is this efficiency correction supposed to work? If I integrate over phase space to obtain the normalization, the best I can hope to achieve is that the average normalization is good. This does not (at first glance) seem to help with efficiency variations over phase space... Probably, most readers will not get the point without the Babar/Belle publications...
- Figure 1: - Move the figure after its first reference in line 72 or refer to it earlier, preferable with a description of the background distribution subtraction and efficiency distribution correction method. - Describe in the caption the superimposed curve as the distribution we expect without resonances in phi'pi. The present text is not suited for in a caption. - Make the vertical scale arbitrary by using a scale between 0 and 1.
- Line 49: Replace "freedom (ndf) equals Nbin-1 minus the number of ..." by "freedom, ndf = Nbin - Nvar, with Nvar the number of ..." Omit -1 here.
- Line 47: Replace "confidence level (CL) of the fit" by "p-value of the fit". We do not refer to a confidence region here. Also correct at other places, e.g. in line 62, 64, 77, 120, and 153.
- Line 48: How is it possible that the p-value distribution from simulated data is not consistent with flat? Please, explain better. This suggests a systematic effect which is apparently NOT simulated.
- Line 46-50: Clarify in the text for what reason toy study is done. And specify exactly which assumption is tested here. The text suggests only that we did not introduce a bug.
Figure 2: Replace "the fit variables (black data points)" by "(top) the reconstructed invariant mass squared and (bottom) the angles theta_phi' and phi".
- Line 83: Replace "suggests neglecting D-wave decays" by
"suggests that D-wave decays can be neglected".
- Line 86: Replace "p-value" by "$p$-value".
- Line 93: Please, clarify: Do we know what DeltaL distribution we expect? If not, do we fit the expected shape with a chi^2 probability distribution (with ndf floating) from toys, and use that to quantify significances in data fits?
- Lines 92-94: "We find that the simulated ?L distribution follows a ?2 PDF with ndf = 7.50 ± 0.11 (statistical error)? : what distribution is EXPECTED? IS the chi2 distribution chosen more or less phenomenologically? What is the meaning of ndf in this case? Is it just some parameter used to parametrise the ?L distribution, or is it related to something? In the next sentence the suggestion is made that it is somehow related to the number of free parameters in the Z- fit. Also, in what sense does taking ndf=8 result in a CONSERVATIVE result? Lastly, the distribution in fig. 3 doesn?t look like a chi2 distribution AT ALL!
- Line 95:
You have done toys and concluded that the effective ndf value is 7.5. Assuming 8, this is 2x the number of free parameters. But what does that mean? Is this a problem with your model? Please make this clear in the text.
Line 105: Remove "even without considering systematic uncertainties". This is not how "consistent" should be understood.
Line 107: Rewrite "float all K* masses and widths while constraining" and explain how the masses are constrained. For example, "by assigning a prior (Gaussian ?) distribution to them according to the PDG values".
- Line 117: Replace "term in Equation (2)" by "term in Eq.(2) of that paper".
- Figure 3: If space for explanations is a problem in PRL, then this trivial figure is a luxury which we could move to the added material.
- Lines 122+122: Change the differential "d" in the integrals to roman style (2x).
- Figure 4: Add the corresponding mass (or mass2) range of the 6 data points.
- Figure 5: - Please give the two Z's different colours and symbols. - Also add a legend in this plot. - Change "candidates" to "number of counts" at the axis. - Replace "data (black points) for m2phi'pi in 1.0<" by "(black points) reconstructed m2phi'pi for B0->phi'piK+ data with 1.0 <". - Replace "veto region" by "excluded".
- Line 160:
Write "Figure 5", since it starts a sentence (EB rules).
- Line 243: Change "Babar" by "BaBar".
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nlmailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics