[Bfys-physics] Fwd: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Dear Friends,
We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below.
If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328.
best regards, - Marcel
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ulrik Egede U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
Regards, Ulrik Egede -- ===================================================================== Latest news from Editorial Board: - Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template. - Use new reference for trigger. See template - Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d - Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template. - When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used. - Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document. =====================================================================
Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688 Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830 Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Dear bfys friends,
Due to the absence of too many people, the bfys meeting tomorrow (Friday 22 Feb) will be cancelled. Please send me your comments on the paper below before Monday and I will collect and upload them.
best regards, - Marcel
On 18 February 2013 14:20, Marcel Merk marcel.merk@nikhef.nl wrote:
Dear Friends,
We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below.
If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328.
best regards,
- Marcel
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ulrik Egede U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
Regards, Ulrik Egede
--
Latest news from Editorial Board:
- Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template.
- Use new reference for trigger. See template
- Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d
- Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template.
- When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used.
- Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document.
=====================================================================
Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688 Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830 Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Dear Marcel, all
[ Explicit post to Rob and Gerhard as they may (should?) know what the topo does to semileptonic decays ]
Just as a bit of background to those not following this saga too closely: this paper measures DeltaAcp between D->pipi and D->KK using semileptonic B decays. It gets a result that inconsistent with the world average obtained from D*-tagged D decays. The plan is to show this in Moriond and at the same time show an update of the D* analysis (to be approved next week).
I have been thinking a lot about how to get a fake DeltaA_cp in this mode and may have come up with something that is probably small but not accounted in the systematics. It's all related to them using the topological trigger. They have a 3-body final state much and use the 3-body topo, which is fine and the the 2-body topo. That's where I have a worry.
In the analysis note (p.78) they report the raw asymmetries for events triggered by 2 and 3 body topos and all seems fine. Still, there could be an effect. They do not say which of the 3 tracks are being used in the 2 body topo. If it's the h+h- it's all fine. If it's mostly muh combinations then I'd like to know if the efficiency of the topo is the same for mu^+h^+ and mu^+h^- (and cc). I could well imagine that they are not identical due to the remaining field in the velo giving a better separation of opposite charge vertices, or decay kinematics (but then wouldn't know how). There could also be a time and charge-dependent tracking efficiency in the Hlt that does not cancel with magnet flips. A misalignment of a T station for instance could make it more difficult for positive than negative to have a good chi2. We had something like that in early 2012 (not included in that analysis).
Now say after trigger we have more mu+h- and mu-h- than the 2 others, then we could cause an asymmetry due to the tracking efficiency of the remaining track not used in the Hlt. The asymmetry between K+ and K- for instance is well known. That's where I'm puzzled, because if I present things like that it looks dangerous. If I start from reconstructed decays and then think about the trigger get to the conclusion there's no effect.
Any thoughts?
Other comments to the paper:
Line 10: why the comma after two-body ? Line 15: is report the right word here? Line 19: no ref for Babar? Line 30 (and abstract): Why write B->DmunuX and say X is what's not reconstructed. The nu is not reconstructed. I'd write B->DmuX and thus would make sure I never have X=0. It would anyway be nubar. Also, why "B"? Are Lambda_b->D0munuppi not included or negligible? In line 47 you for the first time say it has to be a meson. And what about Bs? Eq: 2: The order of terms is not the same as in the text. Line 41: a detection asymmetry Line 99: imply -> produce Line 100: $pp$ Line 183: m(D*-D) -> m(D*)-m(D) Line 224-227 I am a bit lost with effective lifetime and true decay time distribution. What do you mean? Why do you give a systematic error in the result below if that's not a measurement?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 02/21/2013 06:31 PM, Marcel Merk wrote:
Dear bfys friends,
Due to the absence of too many people, the bfys meeting tomorrow (Friday 22 Feb) will be cancelled. Please send me your comments on the paper below before Monday and I will collect and upload them.
best regards,
- Marcel
On 18 February 2013 14:20, Marcel Merk <marcel.merk@nikhef.nl mailto:marcel.merk@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Dear Friends, We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below. If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328. best regards, - Marcel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Ulrik Egede* <U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk>> Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch <mailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch>> Dear Colleagues, A paper is available for your comments: Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication. 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_board/default.html Regards, Ulrik Egede -- ===================================================================== Latest news from Editorial Board: - Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template. - Use new reference for trigger. See template - Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d - Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template. - When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used. - Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document. ===================================================================== Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688 <tel:%2B44%2020%20759%2047688> Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830 <tel:%2B44%2020%20782%2038830> Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk> Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi Patrick,
Short answer, as I see it, I don't think what you say can be a problem with the current trigger strategy.
For DACP if you want to propose another systematic it's got to be different between KK and Kpi.
So, for the topo, it isn't any different. The topo doesn't know what's a k or pi.
The SL-tagged decays are mostly through the MuTopo lines, which means the muon is always TOS, and then one or two hadrons are found from somewhere.
I don't think these sorts of second-order phenomena are those we should be worrying about in this paper, but I'm open to being contradicted.
Cheers,
Rob
------------------------------------------ Robert Lambert FOM-VU-NIKHEF-Bfys LHCb Email: rob.lambert@cern.ch ------------------------------------------ Nikhef N251 Tel: +31 20 592 2131 Fax: +31 20 592 5155 ------------------------------------------ CERN, 13-1-018 Tel: +41 22 767 4024 Fax: +41 22 766 8109 ------------------------------------------ ________________________________ From: Patrick Koppenburg Sent: 22 February 2013 12:05 To: Marcel Merk; Gerhard Raven; Rob Lambert Cc: bfys-physics@nikhef.nl Subject: Re: [Bfys-physics] First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Dear Marcel, all
[ Explicit post to Rob and Gerhard as they may (should?) know what the topo does to semileptonic decays ]
Just as a bit of background to those not following this saga too closely: this paper measures DeltaAcp between D->pipi and D->KK using semileptonic B decays. It gets a result that inconsistent with the world average obtained from D*-tagged D decays. The plan is to show this in Moriond and at the same time show an update of the D* analysis (to be approved next week).
I have been thinking a lot about how to get a fake DeltaA_cp in this mode and may have come up with something that is probably small but not accounted in the systematics. It's all related to them using the topological trigger. They have a 3-body final state much and use the 3-body topo, which is fine and the the 2-body topo. That's where I have a worry.
In the analysis note (p.78) they report the raw asymmetries for events triggered by 2 and 3 body topos and all seems fine. Still, there could be an effect. They do not say which of the 3 tracks are being used in the 2 body topo. If it's the h+h- it's all fine. If it's mostly muh combinations then I'd like to know if the efficiency of the topo is the same for mu^+h^+ and mu^+h^- (and cc). I could well imagine that they are not identical due to the remaining field in the velo giving a better separation of opposite charge vertices, or decay kinematics (but then wouldn't know how). There could also be a time and charge-dependent tracking efficiency in the Hlt that does not cancel with magnet flips. A misalignment of a T station for instance could make it more difficult for positive than negative to have a good chi2. We had something like that in early 2012 (not included in that analysis).
Now say after trigger we have more mu+h- and mu-h- than the 2 others, then we could cause an asymmetry due to the tracking efficiency of the remaining track not used in the Hlt. The asymmetry between K+ and K- for instance is well known. That's where I'm puzzled, because if I present things like that it looks dangerous. If I start from reconstructed decays and then think about the trigger get to the conclusion there's no effect.
Any thoughts?
Other comments to the paper:
Line 10: why the comma after two-body ? Line 15: is report the right word here? Line 19: no ref for Babar? Line 30 (and abstract): Why write B->DmunuX and say X is what's not reconstructed. The nu is not reconstructed. I'd write B->DmuX and thus would make sure I never have X=0. It would anyway be nubar. Also, why "B"? Are Lambda_b->D0munuppi not included or negligible? In line 47 you for the first time say it has to be a meson. And what about Bs? Eq: 2: The order of terms is not the same as in the text. Line 41: a detection asymmetry Line 99: imply -> produce Line 100: $pp$ Line 183: m(D*-D) -> m(D*)-m(D) Line 224-227 I am a bit lost with effective lifetime and true decay time distribution. What do you mean? Why do you give a systematic error in the result below if that's not a measurement?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 02/21/2013 06:31 PM, Marcel Merk wrote: Dear bfys friends,
Due to the absence of too many people, the bfys meeting tomorrow (Friday 22 Feb) will be cancelled. Please send me your comments on the paper below before Monday and I will collect and upload them.
best regards, - Marcel
On 18 February 2013 14:20, Marcel Merk <marcel.merk@nikhef.nlmailto:marcel.merk@nikhef.nl> wrote: Dear Friends,
We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below.
If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328.
best regards, - Marcel
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ulrik Egede <U.Egede@imperial.ac.ukmailto:U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk> Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.chmailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch>
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
Regards, Ulrik Egede -- ===================================================================== Latest news from Editorial Board: - Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template. - Use new reference for trigger. See template - Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d - Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template. - When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used. - Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document. =====================================================================
Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688tel:%2B44%2020%20759%2047688 Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830tel:%2B44%2020%20782%2038830 Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.ukmailto:U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nlmailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Hi Rob,
On 02/22/2013 01:39 PM, Rob Lambert wrote:
Hi Patrick,
Short answer, as I see it, I don't think what you say can be a problem with the current trigger strategy.
For DACP if you want to propose another systematic it's got to be different between KK and Kpi.
So, for the topo, it isn't any different. The topo doesn't know what's a k or pi.
it is different between KK and Kpi: if I get more mu+K- and mu+pi- than mu+K+ and mu+pi+ then the interaction length enters the game for the 3rd track and there the Kaon asymmetry is larger than the pion one.
The SL-tagged decays are mostly through the MuTopo lines, which means the muon is always TOS, and then one or two hadrons are found from somewhere.
which indeed means that one of the 2 hadrons is taken in the 2-body case.
I don't think these sorts of second-order phenomena are those we should be worrying about in this paper, but I'm open to being contradicted.
I agree it's a second order effect that cannot be larger than (fraction of events only from topo-2body)*(Kaon asymmetry)*(asymmetry in muh combinations in topo-2-body). That's (20%)*(a couple of percent)*unknown which is small.
I'll follow Marcel's suggestion and talk to Jeroen.
Cheers,
Patrick
Cheers, Rob
Robert Lambert FOM-VU-NIKHEF-Bfys LHCb Email: rob.lambert@cern.ch
Nikhef N251 Tel: +31 20 592 2131 Fax: +31 20 592 5155
CERN, 13-1-018 Tel: +41 22 767 4024 Fax: +41 22 766 8109
*From:* Patrick Koppenburg *Sent:* 22 February 2013 12:05 *To:* Marcel Merk; Gerhard Raven; Rob Lambert *Cc:* bfys-physics@nikhef.nl *Subject:* Re: [Bfys-physics] First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Dear Marcel, all
[ Explicit post to Rob and Gerhard as they may (should?) know what the topo does to semileptonic decays ]
Just as a bit of background to those not following this saga too closely: this paper measures DeltaAcp between D->pipi and D->KK using semileptonic B decays. It gets a result that inconsistent with the world average obtained from D*-tagged D decays. The plan is to show this in Moriond and at the same time show an update of the D* analysis (to be approved next week).
I have been thinking a lot about how to get a fake DeltaA_cp in this mode and may have come up with something that is probably small but not accounted in the systematics. It's all related to them using the topological trigger. They have a 3-body final state much and use the 3-body topo, which is fine and the the 2-body topo. That's where I have a worry.
In the analysis note (p.78) they report the raw asymmetries for events triggered by 2 and 3 body topos and all seems fine. Still, there could be an effect. They do not say which of the 3 tracks are being used in the 2 body topo. If it's the h+h- it's all fine. If it's mostly muh combinations then I'd like to know if the efficiency of the topo is the same for mu^+h^+ and mu^+h^- (and cc). I could well imagine that they are not identical due to the remaining field in the velo giving a better separation of opposite charge vertices, or decay kinematics (but then wouldn't know how). There could also be a time and charge-dependent tracking efficiency in the Hlt that does not cancel with magnet flips. A misalignment of a T station for instance could make it more difficult for positive than negative to have a good chi2. We had something like that in early 2012 (not included in that analysis).
Now say after trigger we have more mu+h- and mu-h- than the 2 others, then we could cause an asymmetry due to the tracking efficiency of the remaining track not used in the Hlt. The asymmetry between K+ and K- for instance is well known. That's where I'm puzzled, because if I present things like that it looks dangerous. If I start from reconstructed decays and then think about the trigger get to the conclusion there's no effect.
Any thoughts?
Other comments to the paper:
Line 10: why the comma after two-body ? Line 15: is report the right word here? Line 19: no ref for Babar? Line 30 (and abstract): Why write B->DmunuX and say X is what's not reconstructed. The nu is not reconstructed. I'd write B->DmuX and thus would make sure I never have X=0. It would anyway be nubar. Also, why "B"? Are Lambda_b->D0munuppi not included or negligible? In line 47 you for the first time say it has to be a meson. And what about Bs? Eq: 2: The order of terms is not the same as in the text. Line 41: a detection asymmetry Line 99: imply -> produce Line 100: $pp$ Line 183: m(D*-D) -> m(D*)-m(D) Line 224-227 I am a bit lost with effective lifetime and true decay time distribution. What do you mean? Why do you give a systematic error in the result below if that's not a measurement?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 02/21/2013 06:31 PM, Marcel Merk wrote:
Dear bfys friends,
Due to the absence of too many people, the bfys meeting tomorrow (Friday 22 Feb) will be cancelled. Please send me your comments on the paper below before Monday and I will collect and upload them.
best regards,
- Marcel
On 18 February 2013 14:20, Marcel Merk <marcel.merk@nikhef.nl mailto:marcel.merk@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Dear Friends, We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below. If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328. best regards, - Marcel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Ulrik Egede* <U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk>> Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch <mailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch>> Dear Colleagues, A paper is available for your comments: Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication. 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_board/default.html Regards, Ulrik Egede -- ===================================================================== Latest news from Editorial Board: - Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template. - Use new reference for trigger. See template - Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d - Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template. - When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used. - Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document. ===================================================================== Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688 <tel:%2B44%2020%20759%2047688> Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830 <tel:%2B44%2020%20782%2038830> Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk> Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Hi Patrick, My first reaction, Patrick, is to discuss this anyway with the proponents, Jeroen for example. Jeroen is a reasonable guy and indeed if there is an issue, I believe he is the first one to worry about it. Is he aware of this issue?
What I remember from the Velo field, is that it has a bending effect that corresponds to roughly 30% of the resolution. I would think that the mu/h would open enough to make this a small effect. But hard to give numerical numbers.
I guess the positive versus negative track effects (chi2, alignment) should be addressed in an overall systematic. It is true that the DeltaA_CP in table 2 deviates with about 2 sigma between mag up and down. So we *rely* on magnet cancelling, rather then using it as a systematic check. Do they also mention the corrected Delta A_CP anywhere in the analysis note?
cheers, - Marcel
On 22 February 2013 12:05, Patrick Koppenburg Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.chwrote:
Dear Marcel, all
[ Explicit post to Rob and Gerhard as they may (should?) know what the topo does to semileptonic decays ]
Just as a bit of background to those not following this saga too closely: this paper measures DeltaAcp between D->pipi and D->KK using semileptonic B decays. It gets a result that inconsistent with the world average obtained from D*-tagged D decays. The plan is to show this in Moriond and at the same time show an update of the D* analysis (to be approved next week).
I have been thinking a lot about how to get a fake DeltaA_cp in this mode and may have come up with something that is probably small but not accounted in the systematics. It's all related to them using the topological trigger. They have a 3-body final state much and use the 3-body topo, which is fine and the the 2-body topo. That's where I have a worry.
In the analysis note (p.78) they report the raw asymmetries for events triggered by 2 and 3 body topos and all seems fine. Still, there could be an effect. They do not say which of the 3 tracks are being used in the 2 body topo. If it's the h+h- it's all fine. If it's mostly muh combinations then I'd like to know if the efficiency of the topo is the same for mu^+h^+ and mu^+h^- (and cc). I could well imagine that they are not identical due to the remaining field in the velo giving a better separation of opposite charge vertices, or decay kinematics (but then wouldn't know how). There could also be a time and charge-dependent tracking efficiency in the Hlt that does not cancel with magnet flips. A misalignment of a T station for instance could make it more difficult for positive than negative to have a good chi2. We had something like that in early 2012 (not included in that analysis).
Now say after trigger we have more mu+h- and mu-h- than the 2 others, then we could cause an asymmetry due to the tracking efficiency of the remaining track not used in the Hlt. The asymmetry between K+ and K- for instance is well known. That's where I'm puzzled, because if I present things like that it looks dangerous. If I start from reconstructed decays and then think about the trigger get to the conclusion there's no effect.
Any thoughts?
Other comments to the paper:
Line 10: why the comma after two-body ? Line 15: is report the right word here? Line 19: no ref for Babar? Line 30 (and abstract): Why write B->DmunuX and say X is what's not reconstructed. The nu is not reconstructed. I'd write B->DmuX and thus would make sure I never have X=0. It would anyway be nubar. Also, why "B"? Are Lambda_b->D0munuppi not included or negligible? In line 47 you for the first time say it has to be a meson. And what about Bs? Eq: 2: The order of terms is not the same as in the text. Line 41: a detection asymmetry Line 99: imply -> produce Line 100: $pp$ Line 183: m(D*-D) -> m(D*)-m(D) Line 224-227 I am a bit lost with effective lifetime and true decay time distribution. What do you mean? Why do you give a systematic error in the result below if that's not a measurement?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 02/21/2013 06:31 PM, Marcel Merk wrote:
Dear bfys friends,
Due to the absence of too many people, the bfys meeting tomorrow (Friday 22 Feb) will be cancelled. Please send me your comments on the paper below before Monday and I will collect and upload them.
best regards,
- Marcel
On 18 February 2013 14:20, Marcel Merk marcel.merk@nikhef.nl wrote:
Dear Friends,
We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below.
If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328.
best regards,
Marcel
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ulrik Egede U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
Regards, Ulrik Egede
--
Latest news from Editorial Board:
- Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template.
- Use new reference for trigger. See template
- Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d
- Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template.
- When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used.
- Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document.
=====================================================================
Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688<%2B44%2020%20759%2047688> Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830<%2B44%2020%20782%2038830> Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Bfys-physics mailing listBfys-physics@nikhef.nlhttps://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear everybody,
just to add a couple of cents to the discussion, I also get warned by Tabs. 1 and 2 in the paper, and went through the note.
There I found a clear dependence of the magnet up pipi asymmetry versus the lnIPchi2 of the D0 candidate (page 93). Unfortunately in page 85 of the note they say that all the distributions are compatible to be flat (that is not really the case in my opinion). This effect is correlated with the large asymmetry observed for the first bin of muon pt in page 103. If we cut muon Pt > 2GeV, we would not observe asymmetry anymore.
The point then is what can be causing this effect and why don't we observe it in the KK channel? I have to admit that I don't know.
Hopefully you'll have better ideas. Thanks,
Maurizio -- Maurizio Martinelli LHCb Nikhef CERN, office 13-1-26 CH-1211 Genève Tel: +41 (0)227676309 -- Maurizio Martinelli LHCb Nikhef CERN, office 13-1-26 CH-1211 Genève Tel: +41 (0)227676309
On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Marcel Merk wrote:
Hi Patrick, My first reaction, Patrick, is to discuss this anyway with the proponents, Jeroen for example. Jeroen is a reasonable guy and indeed if there is an issue, I believe he is the first one to worry about it. Is he aware of this issue?
What I remember from the Velo field, is that it has a bending effect that corresponds to roughly 30% of the resolution. I would think that the mu/h would open enough to make this a small effect. But hard to give numerical numbers.
I guess the positive versus negative track effects (chi2, alignment) should be addressed in an overall systematic. It is true that the DeltaA_CP in table 2 deviates with about 2 sigma between mag up and down. So we *rely* on magnet cancelling, rather then using it as a systematic check. Do they also mention the corrected Delta A_CP anywhere in the analysis note?
cheers,
- Marcel
On 22 February 2013 12:05, Patrick Koppenburg Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch wrote: Dear Marcel, all
[ Explicit post to Rob and Gerhard as they may (should?) know what the topo does to semileptonic decays ]
Just as a bit of background to those not following this saga too closely: this paper measures DeltaAcp between D->pipi and D->KK using semileptonic B decays. It gets a result that inconsistent with the world average obtained from D*-tagged D decays. The plan is to show this in Moriond and at the same time show an update of the D* analysis (to be approved next week).
I have been thinking a lot about how to get a fake DeltaA_cp in this mode and may have come up with something that is probably small but not accounted in the systematics. It's all related to them using the topological trigger. They have a 3-body final state much and use the 3-body topo, which is fine and the the 2-body topo. That's where I have a worry.
In the analysis note (p.78) they report the raw asymmetries for events triggered by 2 and 3 body topos and all seems fine. Still, there could be an effect. They do not say which of the 3 tracks are being used in the 2 body topo. If it's the h+h- it's all fine. If it's mostly muh combinations then I'd like to know if the efficiency of the topo is the same for mu^+h^+ and mu^+h^- (and cc). I could well imagine that they are not identical due to the remaining field in the velo giving a better separation of opposite charge vertices, or decay kinematics (but then wouldn't know how). There could also be a time and charge-dependent tracking efficiency in the Hlt that does not cancel with magnet flips. A misalignment of a T station for instance could make it more difficult for positive than negative to have a good chi2. We had something like that in early 2012 (not included in that analysis).
Now say after trigger we have more mu+h- and mu-h- than the 2 others, then we could cause an asymmetry due to the tracking efficiency of the remaining track not used in the Hlt. The asymmetry between K+ and K- for instance is well known. That's where I'm puzzled, because if I present things like that it looks dangerous. If I start from reconstructed decays and then think about the trigger get to the conclusion there's no effect.
Any thoughts?
Other comments to the paper:
Line 10: why the comma after two-body ? Line 15: is report the right word here? Line 19: no ref for Babar? Line 30 (and abstract): Why write B->DmunuX and say X is what's not reconstructed. The nu is not reconstructed. I'd write B->DmuX and thus would make sure I never have X=0. It would anyway be nubar. Also, why "B"? Are Lambda_b->D0munuppi not included or negligible? In line 47 you for the first time say it has to be a meson. And what about Bs? Eq: 2: The order of terms is not the same as in the text. Line 41: a detection asymmetry Line 99: imply -> produce Line 100: $pp$ Line 183: m(D*-D) -> m(D*)-m(D) Line 224-227 I am a bit lost with effective lifetime and true decay time distribution. What do you mean? Why do you give a systematic error in the result below if that's not a measurement?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 02/21/2013 06:31 PM, Marcel Merk wrote:
Dear bfys friends,
Due to the absence of too many people, the bfys meeting tomorrow (Friday 22 Feb) will be cancelled. Please send me your comments on the paper below before Monday and I will collect and upload them.
best regards,
- Marcel
On 18 February 2013 14:20, Marcel Merk marcel.merk@nikhef.nl wrote: Dear Friends,
We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below.
If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328.
best regards,
- Marcel
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ulrik Egede U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
Regards, Ulrik Egede
--
Latest news from Editorial Board:
- Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template.
- Use new reference for trigger. See template
- Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d
- Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template.
- When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used.
- Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document.
=====================================================================
Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688 Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830 Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi Marcel,
On 02/22/2013 04:10 PM, Marcel Merk wrote:
Hi Patrick, My first reaction, Patrick, is to discuss this anyway with the proponents, Jeroen for example. Jeroen is a reasonable guy and indeed if there is an issue, I believe he is the first one to worry about it. Is he aware of this issue?
I walked into the Heidelberg office and discussed with Jeroen and Sascha. They agree there could be an effect (Jeroen even came up with a bigger source than the field in the velo that could cause an asymmetry in the topo-2) and will check if there is an asymmetry on which are the two tos tracks. Clearly the effect has to be smaller than the statistical error as else they would have seen a difference between the various trigger lines.
So, please include that question in the CDS post as they now expect it to appear ;-)
Cheers,
Patrick
What I remember from the Velo field, is that it has a bending effect that corresponds to roughly 30% of the resolution. I would think that the mu/h would open enough to make this a small effect. But hard to give numerical numbers.
I guess the positive versus negative track effects (chi2, alignment) should be addressed in an overall systematic. It is true that the DeltaA_CP in table 2 deviates with about 2 sigma between mag up and down. So we *rely* on magnet cancelling, rather then using it as a systematic check. Do they also mention the corrected Delta A_CP anywhere in the analysis note?
cheers,
- Marcel
On 22 February 2013 12:05, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Dear Marcel, all [ Explicit post to Rob and Gerhard as they may (should?) know what the topo does to semileptonic decays ] Just as a bit of background to those not following this saga too closely: this paper measures DeltaAcp between D->pipi and D->KK using semileptonic B decays. It gets a result that inconsistent with the world average obtained from D*-tagged D decays. The plan is to show this in Moriond and at the same time show an update of the D* analysis (to be approved next week). I have been thinking a lot about how to get a fake DeltaA_cp in this mode and may have come up with something that is probably small but not accounted in the systematics. It's all related to them using the topological trigger. They have a 3-body final state much and use the 3-body topo, which is fine and the the 2-body topo. That's where I have a worry. In the analysis note (p.78) they report the raw asymmetries for events triggered by 2 and 3 body topos and all seems fine. Still, there could be an effect. They do not say which of the 3 tracks are being used in the 2 body topo. If it's the h+h- it's all fine. If it's mostly muh combinations then I'd like to know if the efficiency of the topo is the same for mu^+h^+ and mu^+h^- (and cc). I could well imagine that they are not identical due to the remaining field in the velo giving a better separation of opposite charge vertices, or decay kinematics (but then wouldn't know how). There could also be a time and charge-dependent tracking efficiency in the Hlt that does not cancel with magnet flips. A misalignment of a T station for instance could make it more difficult for positive than negative to have a good chi2. We had something like that in early 2012 (not included in that analysis). Now say after trigger we have more mu+h- and mu-h- than the 2 others, then we could cause an asymmetry due to the tracking efficiency of the remaining track not used in the Hlt. The asymmetry between K+ and K- for instance is well known. That's where I'm puzzled, because if I present things like that it looks dangerous. If I start from reconstructed decays and then think about the trigger get to the conclusion there's no effect. Any thoughts? Other comments to the paper: Line 10: why the comma after two-body ? Line 15: is report the right word here? Line 19: no ref for Babar? Line 30 (and abstract): Why write B->DmunuX and say X is what's not reconstructed. The nu is not reconstructed. I'd write B->DmuX and thus would make sure I never have X=0. It would anyway be nubar. Also, why "B"? Are Lambda_b->D0munuppi not included or negligible? In line 47 you for the first time say it has to be a meson. And what about Bs? Eq: 2: The order of terms is not the same as in the text. Line 41: a detection asymmetry Line 99: imply -> produce Line 100: $pp$ Line 183: m(D*-D) -> m(D*)-m(D) Line 224-227 I am a bit lost with effective lifetime and true decay time distribution. What do you mean? Why do you give a systematic error in the result below if that's not a measurement? Cheers, Patrick On 02/21/2013 06:31 PM, Marcel Merk wrote:Dear bfys friends, Due to the absence of too many people, the bfys meeting tomorrow (Friday 22 Feb) will be cancelled. Please send me your comments on the paper below before Monday and I will collect and upload them. best regards, - Marcel On 18 February 2013 14:20, Marcel Merk <marcel.merk@nikhef.nl <mailto:marcel.merk@nikhef.nl>> wrote: Dear Friends, We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below. If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328. best regards, - Marcel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Ulrik Egede* <U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk>> Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch <mailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch>> Dear Colleagues, A paper is available for your comments: Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication. 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_board/default.html Regards, Ulrik Egede -- ===================================================================== Latest news from Editorial Board: - Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template. - Use new reference for trigger. See template - Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d - Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template. - When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used. - Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document. ===================================================================== Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688 <tel:%2B44%2020%20759%2047688> Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830 <tel:%2B44%2020%20782%2038830> Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk <mailto:U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk> Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK. _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl <mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl> https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics-- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl <mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl> https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear All,
I collected the questions and comments that came up during the PhD paper discussion we had on Tuesday about the same paper. These probably all get simple answers when more experienced people have a look
- Not as a comment on the analysis, but more a general question: is there a reason to reweight in p_T and eta (and not, for example, p and pT or p and eta?)
- On section 6 (about the effective lifetime): we were a bit confused why this is important. Is it to show that the measured asymmetry is mainly the direct CP asymmetry, and as input for the aCPdir/aCPindir combination?
- I also thought about ways to shift the Delta A_CP central value, and came up with another second-order effect that I think is not accounted for (it could be that I simply overlooked it): if the production asymmetry depends on kinematics (it should, due to B+ and Bd being able to pick up valence quarks from a proton - and very naively reasoning, we should have some sensitivity to it, if we can measure fs/fd vs pT and eta), and there is a difference in efficiency vs kinematic region for KK and PiPi, a shift in Delta A_CP is generated. It depends on the size of the effects and the way the correlation works, how big it turns out, but the KK and PiPi kinematics differences do not look that small to me, from the plots illustrating the reweighting. As far as I understand from the paper, they take the two muon tags together for the reweighting, which makes it minimally sensitive to differences between B+ and B- (or Bd and Bdbar). And since this depends on the true B kinematics, it would get washed out when looking at the dependence of Delta A_CP on D0 and muon kinematics.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Pieter
Op Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:31:21 +0100 schreef Marcel Merk marcel.merk@nikhef.nl:
Dear bfys friends,
Due to the absence of too many people, the bfys meeting tomorrow (Friday 22 Feb) will be cancelled. Please send me your comments on the paper below before Monday and I will collect and upload them.
best regards,
- Marcel
On 18 February 2013 14:20, Marcel Merk marcel.merk@nikhef.nl wrote:
Dear Friends,
We have been assigned to review the following interesting paper: Search for direct CP violation in D0->K-K+, pi^-pi^+ using semileptonic B decays. For details, please see below.
If there is a volunteer to collect the comments for this paper, please contact me. The bfys meeting to discuss it will be Friday 22 Feb, at 9h30 in N328.
best regards,
- Marcel
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ulrik Egede U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Date: 12 February 2013 23:12 Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2013-003, Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for direct $CP$ violation in $D^0 \to K^- K^+$, $\pi^- \pi^+$ using semileptonic $B$ decays
Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jeroen van Tilburg, Thomas Ruf Reviewers : Tim Gershon (chair), Sheldon Stone, Tom Blake EB reviewer : Jaap Panman Analysis note : ANA-2012-012 Deadline : 26-Feb-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-003-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1514660 Extra authors : Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D2hhFromB
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: LAPP, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France Tsinghua University, China Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Cracow, Poland Birmingham, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the referees and during the EB reading. Following this, there will be a final meeting of the editorial board with contact authors and reviewers present where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
Regards, Ulrik Egede
--
Latest news from Editorial Board:
- Update front page of PAPERs and CONFs to include license. See template.
- Use new reference for trigger. See template
- Instructions for submitting to PLB and JHEP updated in FAQ, http://cern.ch/go/Xz7d
- Acknowledgements and detector section updated in template. Make sure to update your template.
- When the arXiv and journal bibliographic data disagree (e.g author initials or titles), the journal information should always be used.
- Remember to check out new template from SVN each time you start editing a new document.
=====================================================================
Prof. Ulrik Egede, Tel : +44 20 759 47688 Department of Physics, Fax : +44 20 782 38830 Blackett Laboratory, E-mail : U.Egede@imperial.ac.uk Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
-
Marcel Merk -
Maurizio Martinelli -
Patrick Koppenburg -
Patrick Koppenburg -
Pieter David -
Rob Lambert