Hi Tjeerd,
Here's what I have:
Dear Edwige,
Congratulations for this impressive work. I have a few comments and questions
General: How precise is the number 0.47 in L.189 known? You put an approx sign but take it as a constant later. Can you give the reader an idea if it's known to a few % or an order of magnitude? Consequently the plot 5 stops at 0.5, which makes it hard to compare with Atlas. Why not go to 1 and add the Atlas result on the plot. One would then see that we are not that consistent.
L.197 and later: The ratio N/sigma_N is NOT the significance (it is only for negligible signal). If you want to assess a significance, run the fit without the signal component.
L.216: I do not understand the rationale of "is particularly sensitive... twice the uncertainty". Either you believe in this uncertainty or you don't.
The pythia 8 pt dependence is mentioned several times. Should it be given?
Line by line:
L.5: S-wave (no long dash). Same for P. L.22: this gives the impression the chic states are above the BB threshold. L.24 and 41: give the energies and integrated lumi at the same place. Also, say that you consider the 7-8 TeV energy difference irrelevant for production studies. L.68: Add a space after 1.6 L.83: worse wrt to what? L.95: photon -> dielectron L.105: If you use the DV default, it's the PV with smallest IP chi2. That may be below threshold. L.110: You have not said how you measure the decay time. Table 1: remove the spaces before MeV. The row "Selection criteria..." should go to the caption. Fig.1: make it bigger, add LHCb. Caption: blue solid line Eq.1: exp -> \exp L.130: events -> candidates (2x) L.145: one of the n should be a m L.146-160: You seem to mix up the chib and Y mass distributions. It's not very clear. L.159: This is understood as due to the \pt distribution not being well... L.163: r_12 is an important parameter that you seem to describe wrt to the CB line shape. It's the production times BF ratio. L.173: bremsstrahlung photons L.174: -0.5 in math mode. L.178: do you mean "... and -0.5\pm0.5... , respectively.? Fig.2 and following: all grey lines are invisible. Table 2 and 3: the vertical line is wider at the top Table 4: remove "trans", which will make the table fit the width L.255: as expected -> consistent with theoretical expectations Table 6: what does the - sign for \pt model mean? Put the contributions in the same order as in the text. L.293 and 294 and 301: put some spaces around + and - for asymmetric errors Fig.5: add a line at 0.42 L.308: You have an upright Upsilon here Fig.6: add preliminary after CMS, also say it's for 8 TeV only. L.335: it's not clear what \pm30% means for r12. Can you give a range? L.338: "agree with our \chic result" needs a reference and a mention of the \pt scaling. Ref. [26]: Galat'a
Cheers,
Patrick
On 11/07/14 16:42, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear all,
There is a new paper for Nikhef. I hope that Antonio can organise its discussion as I will be away till 14 August.
Best regards, Tjeerd
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:30:49 +0000 From: Rolf Oldeman rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" lhcb-general@cern.ch Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2014-040, Measurement of the $\chi_b(3P)$ mass and of the relative rate of $\chi_{b1}(1P)$ and $\chi_{b2}(1P)$ production
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Measurement of the $\chi_b(3P)$ mass and of the relative rate of $\chi_{b1}(1P)$ and $\chi_{b2}(1P)$ production
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Edwige Tournefier Reviewers : Jibo He (chair), Marco Adinolfi EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Michael Schmelling, Ronan McNulty Analysis note : ANA-2014-022 Deadline : 25-Jul-2014 e-group : lhcb-paper-2014-040-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1742311 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/ChibWithConversion
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Cincinnati, United States Pisa, Italy Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute, Cracow, Poland Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are 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 where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
rd/default.html
Regards, Rolf Oldeman
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics