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: