[Bfys-physics] LHCB-CONF-2017-003-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment)
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 Simone 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
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 Simone 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
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 PAPERrefers 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.chDear 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
Hi Niels,
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...
Thanks for pointing out!
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?
I do not know either, but they do look at min and max pt/eta of the dilepton, so these are dilepton variables. But I agree that it would be safer to do these cross-checks in 2D kinematical plain for the dileptons. But maybe it is just my ignorance and this results in the same cross-check.
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.
Nice! That is reassuring.
Cheers, Maarten
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 aname 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 PAPERrefers 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 onyour 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
Hi Maarten,
I think "min and max pt/eta of the dilepton" means the single lepton with lowest/highest pt/eta, and is as such still a single-lepton variable?
Cheers, Niels
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Maarten van Veghel wrote:
Hi Niels,
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...
Thanks for pointing out!
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?
I do not know either, but they do look at min and max pt/eta of the dilepton, so these are dilepton variables. But I agree that it would be safer to do these cross-checks in 2D kinematical plain for the dileptons. But maybe it is just my ignorance and this results in the same cross-check.
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.
Nice! That is reassuring.
Cheers, Maarten
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 aname 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 onyour 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
It shows that 91.2% of di-muon, while 83.2% of di-electron events of the first bin lie in the region [0.045 - 0.10], i.e. very close to the kinematic limit for di-muons. I am even more worried, since the kinematic effect of the first part of that bin can be even larger than I expected. In fact it means that even in the very tiny bin [0.045 - 0.1] The RK* ratio is 0.75 = (1.13-0.10) / (1.67-0.28) , whereas the prediction is 1.02 = (1.24 - 0.22) / (1.17-0.16) Probably I should have asked to split the first bin in an even tinier part, e.g. [0.045 - 0.06] and [0.06 - 1.1].
I'm a bit suspicious about this..... - marcel
On 28 March 2017 at 12:33, Niels Tuning h71@nikhef.nl wrote:
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/at tachments/1434790/2205854/rkst_2017_03_28.pdf
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 nameto 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 PAPERrefers 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 onyour 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
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Maarten van Veghel -
Marcel Merk -
Niels Tuning -
Patrick Koppenburg