We just got the replies from Marcin to our comments. As they are presenting at the Implications workshop, they just responded to physics questions.
The main criticism we had, not showing the efficiency in bins of q^2, will be adressed (they forgot to put the plot in the paper, apparently).

One thing that is still not clear to me is what result the fit gives in the non-resonant region.
I propose we ask them to show the fit with signal and background included, and then I would be happy for them to show this at the Implications.

Please give me any comments you might still have as soon as possible (today), so the proponents still will have time to look at them.

Dear Mick,

Thank you for your comments. We will address the editorial comments later. For know (in rush for implications workshop) please find our answer for the physics comments:

L. 104 So the sWeighted data agrees with simulation after the pre-selection and first BDT cut? How well does it agree before the BDT cut?

Before the BDT cut, we don’t have Lc peak to check this(to large background)
- L.147: We disagree with this strategy. As you do not provide an efficiency map versus the Dalitz plane, interested readers cannot recast your limit to their favourite model. You actually do not even give an indication of how the efficiency varies on the DP. We suggest you either assign a systematic uncertainty or provide an efficiency map.

We apologize for this. We have planned to include the efficiency map in the paper all along(it is in our ANA note), but in rush towards the implications workshop we forgot to put it in. it will appear for sure in the next version.

- L.153: We hope that what you did is not what is described in the text. The polynomial pdf describes the background, not the non-resonant region. You must have tried to fit the \Lc somehow in order to get a limit. Why don't you show the peak (which my be negative) and give the fitted yield?

I think there is a confusion. The polynomial refers in this case to the background component. We will try to make it clear.
L. 155 So sigma is fixed, also for the normalisation channel? Would it be possible to float it in data, at least for systematics? We did not find a mass shape systematic in the ana note.

We did this for the first version, however it turned out they are consistent so RC suggested to drop it.
L. 166 Which systematic uncertainties are included in the CLs? It makes sense that the stat. error on Lc -> p mu mu and Lc -> p phi are both included.

They are of course included.

Figure 3 Do you also have this plot for lower and higher masses? There should be a range for q^2 from 0 to 1350 MeV. If it is basically empty, it would be good to mention.

We could provide this plot but the fit becomes more complicated. As the background component is not linear in the full range. The only purpose of this plot is to convince the reader that the omega is really an omega and not a rho. We are thinking about providing this plot in supplementary material without the fit.

-------- Doorgestuurd bericht --------

Onderwerp:	LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-013 (a comment has been made on your comment)
Datum:	Sun, 5 Nov 2017 23:34:39 +0100
Van:	CERN Document Server Submission Engine <cds.support@cern.ch>
Aan:	mick.mulder@cern.ch

Dear LHCb Colleague, 
      The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-005) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001 
(entitled: 'Search for the suppressed $\Lambda^+_c \to p \mu^+ \mu^-$ deacy and observation of the $\Lambda^+_c \to p \omega$ decay') has itself been commented on by Marcin Jakub Chrzaszcz [CERN - EP/LBD] (marcin.chrzaszcz@cern.ch). 

This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2017-039-001-COMMENT-013) may be seen at 
http://cds.cern.ch/record/2291652


Best regards,
       The CERN Document Server Server support Team