Hi Vasilis,
I have some follow-ups. See below. In particular, I am
worried what they answer on l.164. They first extract the
signal and background fractions from the B invariant mass, and
then they constrain the B mass, but still use the same
background and signal fractions. Does anyone know if there is
a default chi2 cut in the mass-constrained fits?
Cheers
Jeroen
We think you are referring to the fact that the fit best
seen in Fig. 16 is somewhat above the curve at 980 MeV and
slightly above around 924 MeV. We interpret these as
statistical fluctuations and not indicative of any
“oscillatory behavior”, since the width of the 980 is
narrow enough that only about 25% of the peak number of events
are present at 924 MeV (see LHCb-PAPER-2013-069 Interference
of the f0(980) with other scalar states is allowed in the fit
and taken into account. Adding NR improves the fit in that
region, which gives quite large change on the ratio of
f0(980)/f0(500).
The limit is based on the NR fit, rather than the more
restrictive fit without it. In addition, varying of f0(500)
and f0(980) resonance parameters also changes the fit, and
those are included in the syst. uncertainty. We also don’t
agree that any further discussion here is warranted.
What is wrong with spending one or two
sentences on this? We do not question the results. It would
make the paper stronger when you say that this was carefully
checked by varying the f0 resonant parameters, and that this
pattern is compatible with a statistical fluctuation.
- l.5: “Cabibbo-suppressed”. Add the dash.
- Not normal EB style
No. Please have a look in the EB
guidelines.
- l.44: “by use of either IP requirements or detachment of
the Jpsi from the primary vertex”. IP requirements of what? Of
the Jpsi or its daughters? Please check. Also add meson after
Jpsi.
- We think the statement is clear as is and has been used
previously. Adedd “meson”
If you think the statement is clear,
you can answer our question. We guess the answer is that the
IP requirement refers to the muons, and then the sentence
should be revised.
- l.52: remove “four variables”. Every reader is able to
add 1+3.
- Prefer as is as we are introducing a list
Yes, but the Latin-numbered list is
only three long. Please remove "four variables:".
- Eq.3+4: This should not be written in differential form.
This makes it inconstant (and thus wrong) with Eqs. 5-9. In
this form the amplitude A should be a differential itself
since the full functional form it in there (except for the
decay time). However, you do not write it as such in the other
equations.
- We disagree. Eq 5-9 compliment Eq. 3 &4 and are
stated properly.
We still disagree with the current
notation. Please consider revising.
- l.75: write “|q/p|” the same way as in the equations
before.
- This would be completely incorrect! We take the absolute
value to be unity, not the phase.
We meant writing |q/p| instead of
|p/q|.
- Eq.3+4: Since you make the assumptions for q/p and
indirect CPV, please simplify these equations from the start.
- It is important to show the reader what we are assuming from
the general equations
That is not the point. You can still
explicitly write the assumptions and give the simplified
expressions.
- l.164: You constrain the B0 mass to the PDG value for the
amplitude analysis. But in l.172 you use the signal fraction
from the invariant B mass fit for the angular fit. This looks
wrong. You cannot use that number after constraining to the B
mass. Maybe you only constrain to the B mass for another fit,
but this should be made clear in the text.
- Our procedure is consistent. The invariant mass fit gives
the signal and background fractions. We then can do whatever
we wish to the events, constrain them etc… This does not
change the signal and background fractions.
No, this seems to be really wrong
then. As soon as you do a constrained fit on the B mass, you
typically apply a chi2 cut, which changes the fractions.
Even if you don’t, you need to check that not too many fits
failed. And if you do all this correctly, please mention
this in the text to avoid any confusion.
- l.296: “efficiency-corrected” add dash.
- OK, also “background-subtracted” then
Indeed.
- Eq.34-37: These are all results, so remove the equation
number.
- OK for 34 & 37, the other two are not our results.
Does not matter if it is yours or not.
The EB rule is that displayed results are not numbers.
- Eq.37: C.L -> CL (without dots).
- Prefer as is
Check other papers. All of them have
no dots.