... usual mistake of using the wrong smtp server.
On 09/21/2012 03:16 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi Tjeerd,
Here are my comments to 2012-033.
Title: I don't think observation, measurement and fraction need to be plural. Only decays. Line 9-12: Gamma is an angle of the UT triangle, not a CKM phase. If you accept CKM is the whole picture, then gamma very is well measured via global CKM fits. Line 12: "Inherently free from" is a bit strong. I would say that the SM contribution is largely dominating. Line 15 and 17: The bar on B and Bs are different. Fix your templates. Line 18-19: I would put this sentence before introducing the decays. Line 28: collected by... in 2011 (it could be 2012 as we now have more than that). Line 51: which primary interaction? primary interaction _vertex_. Line 61: B is undefined. Is that the same as the B_(s) below? Line 63-67: There's an ordering problem. It's not clear if D(s) daughters count as B daughters or not. Line 70: I presume m_K* standard for the world average mass. Same for D in line 76. Line 82: too large space after 100. Line 92: What do you mean with vertex constraint? PV? You should cite DecayTreeFitter here, if that's what you use. Line 104: and following: why bold min and max? Line 109: This FoM is only defined if you assume a BF for the decays you want to observe. What did you choose and why? Line 151: Does the value of 86.8 use our measurement of this quantity? (If not it should). Figure 3: The line for Full PDF does not have the same width in the label and the figure. Line 171: "lower-lying strange mesons". Could you be more explicit? Figs 4, 5, 6 miss "LHCb". Fig.7 : I back Rob. 50 would be more convincing. 203-204: why do you introduce e^q_rel and define them in the text? Just put the definitions in the formula. The equation should be numbered. Table 2: It presume your M>3 Corr has something to do with the M(X_s,d)<3 GeV/c^2 veto. Please be explicit, use the same notation and put units where appropriate. Table 2: 10^-2% is a weird unit. Why not 10^-4? 232: two standard deviations where? in MC? Is it relevant? You give no information to the reader to decide if it's likely to be a statistical fluctuation or something to worry about. 237: Systematic error -> The systematic uncertainty. 262: yield, arises (, missing) Table 3: fs/fd: replace 0.0 by --, or N/A. Spell out Efficiency. Line 274: ?? Ref [3] and [4]: Too large space after the title.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 09/21/2012 12:35 PM, Rob Lambert wrote:
Hi Tjeerd,
My comments on the first paper LHCb-PAPER-2012-035:
Your background model systematic seems very large. it is extracted from differences between a standard fit procedure and s-fit procedure. Is it possible you are overestimating this systematic? Here you have a very small number of background events wrt. the signal, and almost nowhere in the mass plot where you are signal-free. in this case I expect the s-weight procedure to be quite poor, and so show a larger statistical dependence on these few background events. In this case, it could be the difference between the two is then not representative of a systematic bias at all, unless the central values disagree.
[[ Perhaps Gerhard will contradict me here ;) ]]
My comments on the second paper LHCb-PAPER-2012-033:
Figures 2 and 3 are very convincing. Figure 7 is definitely not convincing. Rebinning into a smaller number of bins is advised, such that every bin has at least two events.
Line 197: To evaluate the "significance" of the peak, please fix the mean of the Gaussian to the expected mass difference of 565.1 MeV. Otherwise you suffer from local look-elsewhere effects.
Line 199: I do not understand your comment "variations in the background shapes do not change this conclusion". With such a small number of events of both signal and background, I would expect a reasonable dependence on the chosen shape. Flat, linear, threshold function at zero, polynomial, etc.
Cheers,
Rob
Robert Lambert FOM-VU-NIKHEF-Bfys LHCb Email: rob.lambert@cern.ch
CERN, 13-1-018 Tel: +41 22 767 4024 Fax: +41 22 766 8109
Nikhef N241 Tel: +31 20 592 2131 Fax: +31 20 592 5155
From: Tjeerd Ketel [tjeerd@nikhef.nl] Sent: 14 September 2012 17:29 To: bfys-physics@nikhef.nl Cc: Rob Lambert Subject: Bfys Meeting Friday 21 September at 9:30 h in N328
Bfys Meeting Friday 21 September at 9:30 h in N328
Please, in advance first read and comment on the second paper.
9:30 Introduction and discussion of LHCb-PAPER-2012-035 by Krystof De Bruyn 10:30 Inventory remarks LHCb-PAPER-2012-033 10:50 End
With the second paper (2012-033) we will quickly go through the comments received, which I will put (or you may put yourself) at the Nikhef Indico: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/contributionDisplay.py/submit?contribId=1&confId... (Please, protect your text with lhcb and the usual passwd)
Draft 1 : LHCb-PAPER-2012-035 Title : Measurement of the time-dependent $CP$ asymmetry in $B^0 \to J/\psi K^0_{\rm S}$ decays Journal : PLB Contact authors : Bruno Souza de Paula, Julian Wishahi Reviewers : Tom Latham (chair), Sajan Easo EB reviewer : Roger Forty Analysis note : ANA-2012-016 Deadline : 26-Sep-2012 e-group : lhcb-paper-2012-035-reviewers Link : http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1477749 Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Bd2JpsiKS
Draft 2 : LHCb-PAPER-2012-033 Title : First observations and measurements of the branching fractions for the decays $\bar{B}^0_s \to D_s+ K^- \pi^+\pi^-$ and $\bar{B}^0 \to D_s^+K^+\pi^+\pi^-$ Journal : PRD Contact authors : Steven Blusk Reviewers : Kazu Akiba (chair), Andrea Contu EB reviewer : Pierluigi Campana Analysis note : ANA-2012-076 Deadline : 26-Sep-2012 e-group : lhcb-paper-2012-033-reviewers Link : http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1477712 Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/B2DsKPiPiPi
Best regards, Tjeerd =================================================================== EVO: Title: Nikhef Description: Bfys Meeting 9:30-10:50 h Community: LHCb Password: N328
Meeting Access Information:
- Meeting URL
http://evo.caltech.edu/evoNext/koala.jnlp?meeting=M2MvMB222aD2Du9e9uDM92
- Password: N328
- Phone Bridge ID: 572 2703 Password: 4119
EVO Phone Bridge Telephone Numbers:
Switzerland (CERN, Geneva) +41 22 76 71400
Netherlands (Nikhef, Amsterdam) +31 20 7165293 Dial '2' at the prompt
Skype (tm) (World-wide) evo.phone See:
http://evo.caltech.edu/evoGate/Documentation/extclient/skype/skype.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics