Hi everyone,
We have received comments on our comments.
Looking through it quickly, about the large physics points: it seems that they indeed optimise S/(S+B) on MC, which is their “expected”. They gather the TIS efficiency from Monte Carlo. I’m surprised by their very low error on the trigger efficiency in the first place (0.1%). I wonder how they assign a systematic to this TIS thing…
In the light of the winter conference deadlines, it would be nice to get back to them as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have anything else to add. I’ll try to send an answer at the end of tomorrow, or on Saturday if requested.
Good night, Laurent
Begin forwarded message:
From: CERN Document Server Submission Engine cds.support@cern.ch Subject: LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment) Date: 7 March 2018 at 18:30:02 GMT+1 To: laurent.dufour@cern.ch
Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-007) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001 (entitled: 'Observation of the decay $\Lambda^0_b \to \Lambda_c^+ p \bar{p} \pi^-$') has itself been commented on by Mengzhen Wang [CERN - EP/ULB] (mengzhen.wang@cern.ch).
This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2307522
Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team