Hi Jeroen,

I add my comments on the paper.

On 27/03/15 14:17, Jeroen Van Tilburg wrote:

Hi Marcel,

My comments on the Z boson paper:

*General:*

• Following the remark by Patrick, it was not clear to me that the W

boson cross section measurements were redone. It this is true, this should be made clear in the text.

The GEC efficiency has changed, which changes all cross-sections but no ratios. The cross-section at the bottom of p.8 is new, Table 6 is new, but R_W in page 9 is identical to the published value. I think it should be made much clearer in abstract and conclusions which part of the W cross-section paper are superseded. I would put the W cross-section in the abstract.

• Section 4.1 discusses the efficiency corrections. They are measured

with a tag-and-probe technique. However, it is not mentioned in the text which resonances are used for this. I presume it is the Z resonance itself, but this information is missing. Secondly, I wonder how correlated the uncertainties of these tag-and-probe methods are, since this is using the same data sample. Take e.g. the muon ID. If you calculate the muon ID efficiency from the same Z sample, you could have just as well not applied this cut. Actually, this overestimate the true uncertainty. Or, do you assume the same efficiency for both muon charges? Even then there is still some correlation. In case you have carefully treated all these correlations, please mention this in the text.

• Section 4.4 explains the unfolding due to the finite resolution of

pt and phi*. For my understanding, is this really such a large effect? Could you give the reader an idea for how large this effect is?

-Section 4,5: in L.190-193 you say you take half the difference as systematic. But which do you take as central value? The mean? Or one of the two, in which case you should put the full difference as systematic (or explain why you do not).

• The section “Conclusions” reads as an abstract. There is no

discussion on the result. Consider to remove this section, except for the last sentence, or rewrite this section.

Agreed

• In the acknowledgement there is a statement that Ward provided some

MC generator predictions. First, in other papers, any deviation from the standard acknowledgements is put at the start. Second, why is it needed to mention this, when he has been referenced already? Third, the current text is just a statement, rather that thanking him. Please make clear why you thank him and that you thank him.

Or, if it's just an information, put this is a reference.

Textual:

We have many overlapping comments, I only add the new ones.

• Several places: "data set” is two words.
• Several places: TeV is not in the LHCb symbol style.

L.2: the technicality of the virtual photon should be explained around line 24, in the text, and the mass range should be given.

• L15: “the latter data”. This is confusing, since you really mean the

data set. Data can be confused with the "Z boson data”. Suggest to change it to “the 1 fb-1 data set”.

L.17 collaborations

• L18: “an update to the analysis” -> “an update of the analysis"
• L22: Add a digit to the lower eta range: 2.0
• L24: Add the reference at the end (i.e. after “as”)
• L26: “acop” should be in roman font (just as in Eq.2).
• L28: “combined with previously” -> “combined with the previously”
• L28: Add again the reference “[3]” after “W bosons”.
• L30: Remove “complete”
• L32-36: I don’t think this paragraph with the description of the

following sections is really needed. This is not such a long paper.

• L48: Remove the extra space before GeB (note that this requires

changes the symbol definition).

• L61: Why do you "explain” the Van der Meer scan, but not the

beam-gas imaging? Suggest to either remove the VDM explanation (“where colliding beams…profile”) or add a similar explanation after the beam-gas method.

L.84: You write 68% here and 68.3% in L.255. Be consistent.

• L93: Z should be italic.
• L94: Abbreviate Fig. 1.
• Fig.1: Use larger fonts for all text (axis titles, axis labels etc).

Events should start with capital.

There's a lot of space above the caption. Is that white space around the figure? Move the whole figure to the bottom.

• L96: Nouns missing. Add “decays, and” after Z->tautau. Add

“production” after W+W-.

• L100: “the techniques in [6]” -> "the techniques from Ref. [6]"

L.100 to 108: why so little space around \pm? That's a bit unusual.

• L102: “in Ref. [6]"
• L104: Add “decays” after Z->tautau

Eq.(2) and many other places: FSR and GEC should be in roman.

• L131: Combine “Refs.[1,6]"
• L132: Add “the” in “both the tag and probe…”
• L145: Add hyphen in “single-muon trigger”

L.151 "large events" is jargon. Explain.

• L160: Put "GEC" in roman font

(see above) L.170: mentioned above -> defined in Eq. (2). L.171: The momentum resolution is found to be underestimated in the simulation and hence simulation is calibrated to the data (or similar. In your sentence it sounds like you calibrate by underestimating) Footnote 2 should be in the main text, e.g. in line 182. L.184: why either up and down? I presume you do both, not one randomly.

• L206: {\boldmath \Z} in the title.
• L224: “Fig. 5”

L.252: use the latest version of the template to avoid the loss of line numbers (or are you using non standard math environments?) Table 2: Statistics -> Statistical L.256++ : Your R_W\pmZ results would look better in an align environment with a \phantom{0} before 9.07

• L266: “can be used to improve the determination of the PDFs.” It

would be nice to add a reference here.

Fig,2 and following: error -> uncertainty Fig.2 bottom and following: text in label box is too small. Table 6: Right-align the values. The eta ranges should be given with a long dash.

• App C: Missing references here. No reference is given for these

predictions and data points.

• References: Make sure that “collaboration” is always in lowercase.

Put nouns in titles to lowercase everywhere (e.g. in Refs.[37-42]).

• Ref.[9]: is now published. Use the latest LHCb-PAPER.bib.

So is [17] Ref. [4] who is "S.C." ? [38] Who is Y.S.A.? Why no space before Mukhodoodah? [48] This is a proceedings. As you write it it looks like a joint paper. Is that the best reference? Use the references within this paper.

Cheers,

Patrick

Cheers Jeroen

...

On 20 Mar, 2015, at 15:52 pm, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl mailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:

Dear all,

We have a new paper to discuss by Nikhef. I propose it for next bfys meeting on Friday 27 March. Does somebody volunteer to introduce it?

Best regards, Tjeerd

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:20:54 +0000 From: Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch mailto:rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch> To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.ch mailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch> Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-001, Measurement of the $Z$ boson cross-section and ratios of electroweak boson cross-sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV in the forward region

Dear Colleagues,

A paper is available for your comments:

Title : Measurement of the $Z$ boson cross-section and ratios of electroweak boson cross-sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV in the forward region

Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Ronan Wallace, Jonathan Anderson Reviewers : Will Barter (chair), Nigel Watson EB reviewer : Michael Schmelling EB readers : Vincent Tisserand, George Lafferty Analysis note : ANA-2014-070 Deadline : 03-Apr-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-001-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2002513 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Zmumu2011p

The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Firenze, Italy UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Cambridge, United Kingdom CBPF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 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 reviewers 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_... efault.html

Regards, Rolf Oldeman

---

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