Hi all,

I paste my comments below. Please send me yours by Thursday.
I find the paper a bit hard to read, which is expected as the subject is not easy. But given I spent some of the last 14 years following this channel, I'd welcome comments from people who have not been involved. There are probably more things that are not very clear but are to me.

Cheers,

Patrick

------------------------------------------------

Dear Tom, Nicola and friends,

Congratulations for that impressive result. We are getting close to the roadmap (the central values as well, unfortunately...)
Here are the comments from the Nikhef group.

It's a difficult analysis resulting in a difficult paper to understand and more so to write. You've done a great job but there are still some places that could be clarified, especially Section 7. For instance Eq.(7) is a bit vague. I wouldn't know where to plug in these terms. Either say more or less.

A few general comments:

Fig.2: There seems to be a hump in all 6 bins around 5600 MeV. That happens to be the end of your training window. Have you studied these events?

Table 2: It's not clear to use why you need to give corrected and uncorrected numbers. They are consistent at the 1/10th of a sigma level. Why not just give a systematic?

372: phimumu is on the same timescale as your paper. You could refer to it (here I'm getting myself into trouble as I just recommended to Christoph to refer to this paper).
But can't these decays be trivially vetoed at no signal cost. The phi is so narrow it cannot eat into the K* signal.

Purely textual comments:

L.10 why "so"?
L.17 and 19: no colon
Eq.(1) and (2) replace . by \cdot
22: use \CP
23: of the one for the B0 decay (it's the definition, not the B that is transformed)
26: corresponds to -> is (?)
34: S_6 is responsible for generating... S_6 and A_FB are just different parametrisation of the same thing. Please reword.
37: "not suppressed... involved". As opposed to what?
46: and _to_ provide (increases readability)
47: why don't you give the angular expression here? Isn't it equation 6? At least forward reference it.
49: {\rm Re} (we think)
56: Sections 4 and 5 are not mentioned. The backgrounds are in Section 4, not 3.
62: why [6] and not [44]?
71: do you need two citations of [10]?
90: which primary?
91: replace [18] by trigger paper.
100: remove "consistent with that of the K*(892)"
136: "... are shown in Fig.~1." (not for reference)
146: Use template \Lb and \L.
148-151: rewrite that in 2 sentences.
153: and many other places. Why not J/psiK* instead of K*J/psi? It is much more common.
153: and a muon as a pion or a kaon (people outside LHCb do not know any track is a good pion).
160: SM simulation sounds like you're simulating the whole Standard Model.
162: the geometry cannot bias a distribution. Its acceptance does.
179: 2.0 -> two.
188: principle -> principal?
193: Is that really two CB or is one reversed?
210: you should explain here why you use [24] and not [22] for J/psiK*
223 and 226: / -> and (or or)
251: "have an immediate correspondence to the transformations" rephrase
255: helicity _or_ transversity. BTW are they defined? If these relationships are not reproduced where, where can we find them?
256 and elsewhere: why put A^Re_T and A_T^2 in parentheses? You measure all of those.
260: uni-angular sounds like jargon.
265: signal -> angular distribution, or model, or...
267: The angular observables vary... This is very important and should be mentioned the first time you explain you do fits in bins.
269: (1-F_L) why the parenthesis?
275 and 287: Feldman-Cousins
283: express? exhibit?
302: I had to think a bit to realise that largest recoil was the lowest q^2 bin. Why not call it like that?
305: "dilute the impact of the observables" is also very vague.
Footnote 2: Ref [31] is not the same as the gamma combination paper uses for the same method. We have no opinion on who's right, but one should agree if possible.
309: turns out to be the only.
Fig.4 S_3 is bound to be less than 1/2(1-F_L). You could zoom in to at least -0.5<S_3<0.5.
316: S_3/A_FB : S_3 and A_FB. Or are you making a fraction?
333: SM _prediction_
343: Can't you test the assumption of equal B and Bbar in your sample?
350: faithfully reproduce -> are in agreement with
369: You neglect 0.25? That should be explained.
421: A large sample. Not all?
424: by 7\% -> by up to 7\%
Eq.12: \left(1-F_{\rm L}(q^2)\right)
[7] BELLE -> Belle
[11] LHCb. There's an arxiv number.
[18] Still needed?
[21] There seems to be a space missing before TeV

Cheers,

Patrick for the Nikhef group

On 03/28/2013 10:03 AM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: