Dear all,
We've received a reply to our comments: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2277359?ln=en https://cds.cern.ch/record/2277359?ln=en They've answered the questions and implemented all but every single suggestion we made, so I don't think we need a follow-up.
Cheers, Lennaert
On 2 Aug 2017, at 14:49, Lennaert Bel lbel@nikhef.nl wrote:
Dear all,
I've interleaved my comments (also nothing exciting, and not much to add) with Patricks', if there are no further comments I'll submit them by the end of the afternoon.
Cheers, Lennaert
Dear Anita and Sneha,
Congratulations for this new Run 2 result, and on this very sophisticated analysis! Below some points from the Nikhef group.
Regards, Lennaert, on behalf of the Nikhef group
Physics:
- Explain why you have not used K*-->K-piz
- L.229: is isospin symmetry in weak decays a reasonable assumption?
General:
- ADS and GLW are methods to determine gamma, not decay modes. We refer to decays by these acronyms internally, but please refrain from doing so in papers. Also avoid ADS/GLW and say "using the ADS and GLW methods".
- Say "decay mode" and not only "mode"
- We avoid using particles as nouns, usually adding meson or hadron as needed. There are some cases left. But on the other hand you can write "D decay" instead of "D-meson decay".
- Sometimes you write K*, sometimes K*(892). Say 892 the first time and the stick to K*.
Line-by-line: Abstract: L.3 ... are used and tthe K*\pm meson is ... L.2: comes -> originates L.2-3: what about the phase in the PMNS matrix? L.5: can be -> is L.6: CP-violation -> CP violation L.7: Here you miss a sentence explaining that we want to over-constrain the triangle to find NP. Else the reader may wonder why you bother measuring gamma. L.10: Too many digits L.12: briven -> dominated L.20: superposition of \Dz and \Dzb states. L.31 and 33: add charges to K* L.41: replace "the previous B->DK ADS/GLW analysis" by "Ref." L.44: \K+\pim, which is not a \CP eigenstate, ... L.48: why \CP observables in quotes? L.55: This sentence is hard to understand. Do you mean "equal, assuming negligible..." ? L.60: same here L.64: essentially zero -> negligible L.74: errors -> uncertainties L.76: \CP Eq. 13 and 14: CP -> \CP L.81: The expected value is r_B... L.85: decays that are not due to an intermediate K*- resonance L.87: suppressed and favoured should have been defined in L.34 L.128: at a centre-of-mass energy of L.142: candidates in data -> decays L.155: from Ks and pi- candidates L.158 and 164: is 75 and 1.5 times gamma the same information? L.161&162: well-separated L.164: consider quoting the K* natural width L.165: K* resonance L.168: the 3% is signal rejection, right? Consider quoting the signal retention and/or background rejection instead L.174: add charges L.174: (or vice versa) L.188: events -> candidates L.190: remove events. remove "but separate" L.214: "The means are of the two CBs are required to be equal" -> don't you already say that on L.213 by calling it a "common mean"? L.228: remove "both" L.239: Ks meson L.249: statistics -> yield L.253: CP-violating Fig.1: make plots as wide as page. Add space so that the legend does not conflict with boundaries and fit functions. Do not use subfigure and thus label as top and bottom. You could add a line at 5230 L.282: Run 2 data L.290-1: ADS mode -> replace by decay descriptor. "two-body suppressed decay" -> this decay. Table 1: move to bottom of page L.299-300: This is a repetition L.306: Repetition of "where" L.311: Missing article after "with" L.318: events -> candidates (twice) L.325++: why the so small space between = and -? L.327: add charges to pipi and KK L.328: same as L.325 P.12: remove page break Fig.2-3: should be in p.10 L.333: can be -> are L.342: remove "so" L.363: are -> is Fig.4: Do not use subfigure. Avoid LHCb and n\sigma covering lines. [15-16] collaboration [16] add hep-ex/0604054 [32] Use "and online update at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hflav http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hflav"
On 30 Jul 2017, at 20:54, Patrick Koppenburg <patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Dear Lennaert,
Here are my comments on the paper. Nothing very exciting.
Dear
Congratulations for this new Run 2 result.
Physics:
- Explain why you have not used K*-->K-piz
- L.229: is isospin symmetry in weak decays a reasonable assumption?
General:
- ADS and GLW are methods to determine gamma, not decay modes. We refer to decays by these acronyms internally, but please refrain from doing so in papers. Also avoid ADS/GLW and say "using the ADS and GLW methods".
- Say "decay mode" and not only "mode"
- We avoid using particles as nouns, usually adding meson or hadron as needed. There are some cases left. But on the other hand you can write "D decay" instead of "D-meson decay".
- Sometimes you write K*, sometimes K*(892). Say 892 the first time and the stick to K*.
Line-by-line: Abstract: L.3 ... are used and tthe K*\pm meson is ... L.2-3: what about the phase in the PMNS matrix? L.5: can be -> is L.7: Here you miss a sentence explaining that we want to over-constrain the triangle to find NP. Else the reader may wonder why you bother measuring gamma. L.10: Too many digits L.12: briven -> dominated L.20: superposition of \Dz and \Dzb states. L.31 and 33: add charges to K* L.41: replace "the previous B->DK ADS/GLW analysis" by "Ref." L.44: \K+\pim, which is not a \CP eigenstate, ... L.48: why \CP observables in quotes? L.55: This sentence is hard to understand. Do you mean "equal, assuming negligible..." ? L.60: same here L.64: essentially zero -> negligible L.74: errors -> uncertainties L.76: \CP Eq. 13 and 14: CP -> \CP L.81: The expected value is r_B... L.85: decays that are not due to an intermediate K*- resonance L.87: suppressed and favoured should have been defined in L.34 L.142: candidates in data -> decays L.155: from Ks and pi- candidates L.158 and 164: is 75 and 1.5 times gamma the same information? L.165: K* resonance L.174: add charges L.188: events -> candidates L.190: remove events. remove "but separate" L.228: remove "both" L.239: Ks meson L.249: statistics -> yield Fig.1: make plots as wide as page. Add space so that the legend does not conflict with boundaries and fit functions. Do not use subfigure and thus label as top and bottom. You could add a line at 5230 L.282: Run 2 data L.290-1: ADS mode -> replace by decay descriptor. "two-body suppressed decay" -> this decay. Table 1: move to bottom of page L.299-300: This is a repetition L.318: events -> candidates (twice) L.325++: why the so small space between = and -? L.327: add charges to pipi and KK P.12: remove page break Fig.2-3: should be in p.10 L.333: can be -> are L.342: remove "so" Fig.4: Do not use subfigure. Avoid LHCb and n\sigma covering lines. [15-16] collaboration [16] add hep-ex/0604054 [32] Use "and online update at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hflav http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hflav"
Cheers,
Patrick
On 25/07/17 11:30, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Dear all,
The EB is providing us reading material for the beach (or the office): a paper that should be called "yet another measurement of gamma". Lennaert kindly agreed to collect comments. The deadline is Thursday 3 August, so please send comments by Wed 2nd.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-030, Measurement of $C!P$ observables in $B^\pm \to DK^{\ast \pm}$ decays using two- and four-body $D$-meson final states Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:29:28 +0000 From: fergus.wilson@stfc.ac.uk mailto:fergus.wilson@stfc.ac.uk To: lhcb-general@cern.ch mailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch CC: LHCb-PAPER-2017-030-reviewers@cern.ch mailto:LHCb-PAPER-2017-030-reviewers@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments. Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group (see below)!
Title : Measurement of $C!P$ observables in $B^\pm \to DK^{\ast \pm}$ decays using two- and four-body $D$-meson final states
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Anita_Nandi, Sneha_Malde Reviewers : Jonas_Rademacker (chair), Eva_Gersabeck EB reviewer : David_Ward EB readers : Roland_Waldi, Alberto_Correa_dor_Reis Analysis note : ANA-2017-005 Deadline : 3-Aug-2017 e-group : lhcb-paper-2017-030-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2275257 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2275257 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/Bu2DKstar https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/Bu2DKstar
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Cincinnati__United_States Ruprecht-Karls-Universitaet_Heidelberg__Germany Valencia-CSIC__Spain NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands RWTH_Aachen__Germany IHEP__Protvino__Russia
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies to all comments made. Subsequent modifications to the draft will be made in consultation with the reviewers and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board, with contact authors and reviewers present, when final decisions will be made. As the last step, the collaboration will be given a final opportunity to comment during a 'silent approval' period.
You can find all paper and conference report drafts open for comments via the EB web-page, by clicking on Current Drafts:
http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/lhcb_page/collaboration/organization/editorial_... http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/lhcb_page/collaboration/organization/editorial_board/default.html
Best regards, Fergus
Fergus Wilson, PPD & CERN, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK. Tel: +44-(0)1235 445259 Fax: +44-(0)1235 445672 CERN Tel: +41-22 76 77379 Skype: ferguswilson5259
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact