Hi,
Just a few comment from my side.
General: Is the luminosity corrected for the fact that the leading bunches suffer less from the dead time introduced by the RICH readout?
L3: Long sentence. Would be natural to split here like “… relevant for particle physics at accelerators. It is also important for astroparticle physics [1], ….”.
L10: remove space between square and s in the ln2s.
L15: remove first occurrence of “cross-section”.
L48-50: “The cross-calibration….has a precision of 0.2%.” The reader does not know what is cross-calibration (do you mean calibration?) and a calibration by itself does not have a precision (do you mean that the luminosity after calibration has 0.2% precision?).
L63: The lifetime should be larger than 30 ps. It would help the reader what this means effectively. Which particle types are selected, how was this selected?
L71: write out “three-dimensional”
L88: "the probability distribution of reconstructed tracks” is not clear. Do you mean the number of reconstructed tracks, or do you mean the probability that a track is reconstructed?
L105: “its value” it is not clear what its refers to (in particular it is a different it from the previous sentence). Change to “the value of \alpha”
L109: add hyphen “higher-order”
L119: add hyphen “leading-order”
L173, Table 2: Write Pythia in same font as L55.
L256: Write AMS in capitals.
Cheers
Jeroen
Dear
all,
I
read the draft this morning. I paste below my comments.
I
encourage people interested in statistics to have a look. The unfolding procedure is quite involved.
Cheers,
Patrick
#==================================================
Dear
Alvaro, Michael,
Congratulations
for the well written paper and the important "EMTF" result. It's always a pleasure to read papers written by former EB chairs.
Physics:
-
You say it's a Poisson distribution. Is it? Can you show it?
-
We are surprised there is no additional material. Some distributions would help showing this at conferences.
General:
-
In L.49 and 123 you use the concept of "run" without defining it. Different experiments have different definitions of what that is. Maybe worth adding that a run is a data set taken with stable conditions, and amounts to at most one hour.
Line-by-line:
Abstract:
We think it would be more natural to move the sentence about the statistical uncertainty after that explaining what the uncertainties are.
L.1:
This sentence is long. Consider splitting it.
L.11:
Add a paragraph break here.
L.14:
"in the lab" is jargon. Do you mean "in laboratory conditions", "in the laboratory frame" or both?
L.18:
remove "also". We suggest to add here that LHCb is unique in covering 2<eta<5 (true?).
L.20:
If you follow the suggestion above, there's no need to repeat the eta range.
L.36:
"trigger line" is jargon. What about "based on unbiased triggers"?
L.37:
"but accept those..." is a bit out of place. We think the sentence is clearer without it.
L.43:
B -> magnetic
L.44:
remove "about"
L.71:
dimensional
L.74:
allows to is not good English
L.78:
remove "then"
L.88:
This sentence is long. Consider splitting it.
L.102:
single -> only (?). detector-related
L.129:
we usually write Ref., but that may not be a rule (also 225)
L.140-1:
remove "systematic" twice. We know you discuss systematics here.
L.144:
extracting -> determining
L.148-151:
These two sentences are in the wrong order. First state there is a problem and then explain you assign a systematic uncertainty to cover it.
L.155:
Remove "Careful", all we do is careful.
L.166:
generator-level. Remove Monte-Carlo
Table
1: We suggest to align source on the left. Add a row with the total.
L.170:
"efficiencies to be seen" sounds strange. Detection efficiencies?
Table
2: add a space before (A) and (B)
L.203:
remove "one"
Fig.2:
not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics.
L.225:
error -> uncertainty
L.228:
space before 3
Fig.2:
not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics.
Fig.2:
All mathematical terms should be in italics. The colour coding is a bit unnatural. Following the logo colours would help speakers in talks (who are likely to add logos on their slides). ATLAS is blue, CMS is light blue/orange, alice Red/Black, totem light
red.
Refs:
most arxiv refs are missing.
Cheers,
Patrick
On
01/31/2018 10:33 AM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Dear all,
A new paper is assigned to us.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/2302458
Please read it and send comments. I am looking for a volunteer to collect these comments, please let me know.
I also remind you of the bfys meeting Friday, with Niels as speaker.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
========================================================================
Patrick
Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam
https://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
_______________________________________________
Bfys-physics
mailing list
Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics