Hi Maarten et al.,

I just peeked in the slides of the review meeting on RK* from this morning; https://indico.cern.ch/event/626439/contributions/2529544/attachments/143479...

One of the issues that we also brought up, was the flatness of r_Jpsi. I'm not sure what to conclude. I found Patrick's thoughts interesting: perhaps everything cancels when one looks at the single-electron distributions. But the procedure relies on the fact that it factorizes when going to the di-electron system...

I don't know how to test the validity of the assumption, though?

Secondly, it's interesting to see that they increased the lower bin edge of the low-q2 bin, from [0.045-1.1] to [0.1-1.1] to see how the result changes (nb: 90% of the cross section of that bin is very close to q2=0, [0.045-0.1] ). With the new lower edge, the low-q2 bin shows the _same_ trend as the central q2 bin, namely too few muons, and agreeing electrons.

Btw, the final significance is judged to be 3 - 3.2 sigma.

Cheers, Niels

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:

Hi Maarten,

I agree, but they defer most comments t the paper (which is fine). We'll need to be careful. I am slightly worried that they think that this

  Section 9 is poorly written and hard to understand. You give a name to systematic uncertainties an explain
  how you got them but not not say which effect you try to catch. That's very critical for this analysis to
  be understood. For instance the first sentence of the simulation correction item is totally mysterious.
  Relative efficiency to what? Why would unweighted events take into account simulation statistics?

  >>> We will work on that for the PAPER

refers to phrasing. I understand they assess a systematic by comparing weighted and unweighted events. This method as undefined coverage. What they should do is vary the weights within uncertainties.

Do we want to nudge back?

Cheers,

Patrick

On 21/03/17 10:20, Maarten van Veghel wrote:

  Dear all,

  We have received a reply to our comments on the Rk* conf note (http://cds.cern.ch/record/2256336).
  In my opinion they gave satisfactory replies. Feel free to take a look and see if they are satisfactory
  for you as well.

  Cheers,
  Maarten

  -------- Forwarded Message --------
  Subject:
  LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment)
  Date:
  Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:53:07 +0100
  From:
  CERN Document Server Submission Engine <cds.support@cern.ch>
  To:
  maarten.vanveghel@cern.ch

Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001-COMMENT-007) that you made on LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001 (entitled: 'Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays') has itself been commented on by Simon e Bifani [CERN - EP/ULB] (simone.bifani@cern.ch).

This new comment (LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001-COMMENT-014) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2256336

Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team

---

Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics

--

Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact