Dear all,

We've received a reply to our comments: 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"


On 30 Jul 2017, at 20:54, Patrick Koppenburg <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"

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
To: lhcb-general@cern.ch
CC: 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
Authors         : LHCb
Twiki           : 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_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
https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics


-- 
========================================================================
 Patrick Koppenburg                                   Nikhef, Amsterdam
 http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact