Hi Patrick,

"Long" tracks composed of VELO+TT+ 1 T-station are no yet used in LHCb. As far as I know Maurizio was looking into this? (Also in relation to the future magnet stations.)

I think this new type of tracks could be a huge improvement in tagging-, tracking- and event efficiency for many analyses?

Cheers, Niels

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Jeroen Van Tilburg wrote:

This is about long reconstructed tracks that they use as input. I believe one station is not enough to pass any selection. Even if they have long tracks with hits in only one T station, then still this sentence can be misinterpreted as ?? in only one downstream tracking stations?. In this case, they should simply remove ?one of?, such that it reads ?...in the vertex detector and in the downstream tracking stations?.

  On 5 Apr, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:

Hi again,

One question I have may just reflect my lack of understanding of the tracking:

...

• L.91: In *one* of the downstream tracking stations? Is that enough?

do we have tracks with just hits in one T station?

Thanks

Patrick

On 05/04/17 12:20, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: Dear all,

  The r_K* paper is out. We already gave the proponents a very hard time asking a
  lot of questions, but they are very good at replying in a satisfactory manner.
  Please read the paper draft at https://cds.cern.ch/record/2258163 and send
  comments to Maarten.

  See also his slides at
  https://indico.nikhef.nl/getFile.py/access?contribId=2&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=577.
  The numbers have slightly changed (toward the SM). Also note that in the meantime
  a bug was found in paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04731 and now the two
  measurements of BF(K*mumu) agree (and the published avlue moves _away_ from the
  SM).

  Note there is quite some disagreement between some people (including me) and the
  proponents about what numbers to report. They measure the BFs of K*ee in 2 bins
  but do not report them. The numbers are yet very interesting and we should not
  let theorists determining them wrong. Also, the ratio r_Psi(2S) has been
  determined including the systematic uncertainty. This value is interesting as the
  constraints on Psi(2S)->ee vs mumu are very weak (11%). The main argument of the
  proponents is religious: had they found this ratio not to be 1, they would have
  used it differently. I think that would have been the case for R_K* too. They
  would not have published a value of 10.

  Cheers,

  Patrick

  //===================================================

  Here are my comments:

  Dear Simone, Francesco, Marie-H?l?ne,

  Congratulations for the very well written paper. We have already given you a hard
  time with many questions in previous rounds and are generally very happy with
  your answers. There are a few items remaining.

  Please note that questions asked imply something is not clear in the draft and
  therefore please consider a clarification in the paper. We suggest extensions of
  the text at some places as this paper is likely to be tread by people not
  familiar with LHCb.

  Physics:
   - L.91: In *one* of the downstream tracking stations? Is that enough?
   - L.264: (already in CONF)  This procedure can cause biases if this fraction of
  1-2% is not identical for all your four samples. See
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01128. A systematic uncertainty must be assigned (and
  will be small). You should at least say these fractions are the same for all
  samples.
   - L.264: if most MC are K<->pi swaps, that indicates your PID requirements are
  too lose. You should say that to avoid giving the impression we have a poor K-pi
  separation.
   - L.330: why do you need to take the fraction of number of bremsstrahlung
  photons from simulation? The data tells you that. Or do we miss something?
   - Fig.4: in the bottom plot, you have a white region below the total PDF around
  5500 MeV which corresponds to about 50 candidates per bin (zooming in). That's
  more than the about 10-20 signal candidates in that region. Do you miss a
  component? Or, if that's signal, then why is the white band narrower at 5400?
   - Why don't you report the measured BFs in q^2 bins? That's very interesting.
   - It is a pity you do not report r_\psitwos which contains a lot of physics.
   - We request you do a combination of the significances of the two bins to avoid
  theorists doing it themselves and wrong. A combination with R_K would also be
  useful, at least to be given in talks (and thus in additional material in CDS).

  General:
   - We prefer the PDG convention B->J/psiK*, but understand why you spell it as
  K*J/psi for symmetry.

  Line-by-line:
  L.19: do we usually write \B factories or \B-factories? We prefer the former (as
  in \B decay).
  L.26: there are many more papers one could cite for LQ models. See for instance
  https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09226 and references therein. Obviously you can't cite
  them all.
  L.29: The comment on (pseudo)scalars could be expanded and moved to the
  paragraphs above where you discuss the physics.
  L.45: Bremsstrahlung radiation is a pleonasm. Maybe emission?
  L.48: We see what you mean, but a factor cannot be reproducible. Either "unknown
  constant factor" or "unknown, in a reproducible way".
  L.52: either "between 0.045 and 1.1" or "in the range [0.045,1.1]"
  L.56: found how? You measure it or you compute it based on the PDG. This is
  resolved only much later in the text. Maybe "known to be small" or just "is
  small".
  Table 1: [20-22] is not vertically centre-aligned
  L.114: "optimal" is a bit vague. We wonder what external people will understand.
  L.131-132: propose: "to both electrons", then remove "track" (you don't add to
  the track anyway).
  L.132-136: This needs a rewrite. First it's unclear if you mean signal K*J/psi or
  simulated. Second, how can you find that it's q^2-independent while looking at
  K*J/psi?
  L.141: the thresholds are also the results of a physics optimisation, not only
  due to occupancy. The present sentence sounds like we have the same rate for all
  L0 triggers.
  L.143: propose: a fraction that only...
  L.165: remove "one" (the second one ;) )
  L.176,184,192: never use \Bz as a noun. Here add "candidate".
  L.180: "HCAL. However,"
  L.195: {\rm th}
  L.197: which binning scheme? You have not yet mentioned bins.
  L.204: space between 800 and (500)
  Fig.2: The default rainbow colour scheme does not work in BW. Choose one of the
  many printer-friendly ones. On the x axis the K appears bold (could be the
  printer). Always add charges to particles.
  L.223: Section ??
  L.227: "allows to" is disfavoured in proper English.
  L.237: the \B and \Kstarz candidates and the di-lepton pair.
  L.237: We assume you mean the FD wrt the PV for the \Bz. But flight distance wrt
  what for the K* and the di-lepton?
  L.256: events -> candidates
  L.257: We stumbled over "required on the 2D plane" as we first thought you meant
  a physical plane. Propose: "A requirement applied in the plane formed by the
  corrected..."
  L.260: This is not a significance. -> "to maximise the precision on B(B->K*ee).
  L.261: Number of expected signal events -> expected signal yields (avoid using
  "events"). Same for background.
  L.269: why the long spaces in the decay descriptors? Probably need some \mbox{}
  around them.
  L.293: \Kp{}\Km
  L.294: candidates -> signal
  L.296: Add that you fit separately for ee and mumu. Also it is not clear at this
  level that you mean the two q^2 bins, and not the three intervals including the
  resonant mode. Maybe say here that it's a simultaneous fit with J/psiK*.
  L.330: cite Wouter here.
  L.306: well, not all, as you describe below.
  L.320: event -> decay
  L.322: this sentence comes as a surprise here and does not convey any
  information. Could you be more specific on how you use it to determine its
  leakage?
  L.330: events -> candidates.
  L.332: "trigger PDF" is a bit short. You mean PDF for each trigger category.
  Fig.4: font on x axis is too small. Add charges
  L.338: \Kstarz -> kaon (not all excited kaons are K*, as the name of the K(1270)
  suggests)
  L.341: events -> decays
  L.342: "simulated candidates" or just "simulation"
  Fig.5: why is the bottom plot on in log as the corresponding Fig.4 plot?
  L.348: we presume "decay kinematics", but more information is required here.
  L.362: double ratio
  L.362 (already in CONF): "expected" sounds like wishful thinking. Do they or do
  they not?
  L.365 (already in CONF): dislike abusing itemize to emulate description.
  L.382: considered. However
  L.389: events -> decays
  L.394: Double -> double
  L.400: events -> candidates
  L.416 and 428 and Table 4: use \boldmath
  L.419: 1 -> unity
  L.420: are therefore considered to be a sign
  L.429 and following: LL is an acronym and thus should be in roman. Or consider
  calling it $\ln L$.
  Table 5: [0.517,0.891] and so on to make clear it's a range.
  Section 10: Remove the itemize environment. Paragraphs would work as well (you
  can merge items 3 and 4)
  L.458: systematics -> systematic uncertainties
  L.462 and 467: remove statistical
  L.475-486: would prefer if you just referred to App B and say the plots are
  there. With the present way, you force the reader to turn pages a lot.
  L.491: first run is undefined here. Say 2011 and 2012 as in the introduction.
  Table 6: events -> decays. Now that you have all numbers for simulation and data
  it would make more sense to give the numbers for data and those for simulation in
  parentheses.
  Fig.8 and following: Background-subtracted. simulation.
  [1] Model-independent (the inspire record is wrong. We informed them.)
  [12] why are these and only these refs concatenated?. Remove spurious no. 7.
  [13] remove no. 11
  [15] remove the note [,166(2003)]
  [16] remove no.8
  [40] NeuroBayes

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Schmelling Michael.Schmelling@mpi-hd.mpg.de Date: 4 April 2017 at 09:23 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-013, Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch Cc: LHCb-PAPER-2017-013-reviewers@cern.ch

Dear Colleagues,

A draft paper is available for your comments:

** Please note that the circulation has been shortened to end before Easter! **

Team leaders, please verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group!

Title           : Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays

Journal         : JHEP Contact authors : Simone_Bifani, Francesco_Polci, Marie-Helene_Schune Reviewers       : Vladimir_Gligorov (chair),                   Rafael_Silva_Coutinho EB reviewer     : Franco_Bedeschi EB readers      : Mitesh_Patel, Rolf_Oldeman Analysis note   : ANA-2015-016 Deadline        : 14-Apr-2017 e-group         : lhcb-paper-2017-013-reviewers Link            : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2258163 Authors         : LHCb Twiki           : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/BdToKstLL

The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Glasgow__United_Kingdom NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands Oxford__United_Kingdom Cambridge__United_Kingdom CERN__Switzerland TU_Dortmund__Germany

Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies to all comments made. Subsequent modifications to the draft will be 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, when final decisions will be made. As the last step, the collaboration will be given a final opportunity to comment during a ?silent approval? period.

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_...

Best regards, Fergus & Michael

-- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603

--

Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics