[Bfys-physics] Tr : Conference report circulation: CONF-2017-003, Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays
Hi again,
Maarten kindly agreed to collect comments. Please send them by Thursday.
Thanks
Patrick
On 12/03/17 14:16, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
We've been lucky. The CONF note about K*ll is assigned to us. It's likely to be the most discussed result of the year. Please read asap as the deadline is quite close. I'll make sure we have a volunteer to gather comments.
Cheers,
Patrick
Patrick Koppenburg, Nikhef
-------- Message original -------- Objet : Conference report circulation: CONF-2017-003, Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays De : Michael Schmelling À : LHCb General mailing list Cc :
Dear colleagues, A conference report is available for your comments: Title: Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays Contact authors: Simone_Bifani, Francesco_Polci, Marie-Helene_Schune Reviewers: Vladimir_Gligorov (chair), Rafael_Silva_Coutinho, Franco_Bedeschi (EB) Analysis note: ANA-2015-016 Deadline: 17-Mar-2017 e-group: lhcb-conf-2017-003-reviewers Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2255344 Twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/BdToKstLL Institutes requested to submit comments on the report: Glasgow__United_Kingdom NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands Oxford__United_Kingdom Cambridge__United_Kingdom After the deadline, the reviewers are charged with approving the report for public release, once they are satisfied that all comments have been taken into account. You can find all reports 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 Best regards, Michael -- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear Maarten,
Here are my comments on the RK* note:
l. 46) Could you add that lepton universality holds to 0.1%, as BF( J/psi -> e+e-) / BF( J/psi ->mu+mu-) = 1.0016+-0.0031 ?
Table 1: the theoretical uncertainties and their central values vary quite a bit, but in the conclusion only the predictions from [19-21] are used for comparison. Would it not be better to take an average with the uncertainty given by the average absolute deviation? This gives me r_low_q^2 = 0.9189 +- 0.0191, r_mid_q^2 = 0.9977 +- 0.0015.
l. 109) bremsstrahlung radiation -> bremsstrahlung
l. 139) channels channels -> channels
l. 215) Are these background samples based on data candidates?
l. 246) viceversa -> vice versa
l. 296) Should the Bs mean value not be given by the Bd mean shifted by the PDG mass difference? Otherwise the ~5 MeV shift upwards of the Bd and Bs means is not taken into account for the Bs.
l. 362) Have you performed any checks to test this?
Table 4: the fit uncertainty seems to be not included in the total systematic. Does this mean the plots and significance estimates also did not include the systematic uncertainty for the fit?
l. 413) Is there a place in the note were I can read from a plot or can I compute by hand a rough estimate of the significance? Given the numbers in the note I would estimate a significance of 3.05 (3.12) sigma for the low (mid) q^2 bin, while we get 2.7 (3.1).
l. 420) Could you give a bit of information on which systematics are included in the R_Jpsi ratio, and how much they contribute?
Cheers,
Mick
Op 12/03/17 om 17:03 schreef Patrick Koppenburg:
Hi again,
Maarten kindly agreed to collect comments. Please send them by Thursday.
Thanks
Patrick
On 12/03/17 14:16, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
We've been lucky. The CONF note about K*ll is assigned to us. It's likely to be the most discussed result of the year. Please read asap as the deadline is quite close. I'll make sure we have a volunteer to gather comments.
Cheers,
Patrick
Patrick Koppenburg, Nikhef
-------- Message original -------- Objet : Conference report circulation: CONF-2017-003, Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays De : Michael Schmelling À : LHCb General mailing list Cc :
Dear colleagues, A conference report is available for your comments: Title: Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays Contact authors: Simone_Bifani, Francesco_Polci, Marie-Helene_Schune Reviewers: Vladimir_Gligorov (chair), Rafael_Silva_Coutinho, Franco_Bedeschi (EB) Analysis note: ANA-2015-016 Deadline: 17-Mar-2017 e-group: lhcb-conf-2017-003-reviewers Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2255344 Twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/BdToKstLL Institutes requested to submit comments on the report: Glasgow__United_Kingdom NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands Oxford__United_Kingdom Cambridge__United_Kingdom After the deadline, the reviewers are charged with approving the report for public release, once they are satisfied that all comments have been taken into account. You can find all reports 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 Best regards, Michael -- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603
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
H Maarten,
In spite of the CONF being dead I think we should still comment and also make textual suggestions. The CONF will be the basis of the paper, so whatever is done now does not need fixing later.
Here are my comments
Dear Simone, Francesco, Marie-Hélène,
Congratulations for this important result and the breakthrough in getting R_jpsi right.
Do we understand right that adding the two bins we get a 4.7 sigma evidence for New Physics? If so this is not a test of LU, this is evidence of LU. Adding uncertainties up very conservatively we get 4.2 sigma including RK. This is too serious business for a CONF.
Below are the detailed comments.
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We apply the same level of pedantry as for a paper as we consider to be a 0th draft of the paper.
Please note that questions asked imply something is not clear in the draft and therefore please consider a clarification in the paper.
Physics: L.245: 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). L.292: It is not clear why you add Lb backgrounds in the J/psi modes but not in the NR modes. The Lb->pKmumu decay is observed. Table 3: The extremely large corrections for L0H need a sentence of explanation. Also, your systematics are essentially the uncertainties on these correction factors. It would be nice to quote them here. 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? L.362: "expected" sounds like wishful thinking. Do they or do they not? L.364: It is not clear what this is supposed to catch. Why is that not correlated? 10.2: Why is the \psitwos cross-check not reported?
General: - Consistently use \mumu, \epem and \ellell. Sometimes you have charges, sometimes not. - Sec. 9: it would be useful if the correlated and uncorrelated uncertainties were grouped together.
Line-by-line: Abstract: please add some space around the + and - or the asymmetric errors. Systematics -> systematic. Correlated between what? footnote: ^{\rm th}$ L.11: no colon before equations L.20: suggest "At \epem collider operating ... resonance, the ratios... " to make clear what's consistent. L.29: as being -> as it is (or we do not understand the sentence) L.34: and K* L.46: K* meson Fig.1: the diagrams could be made more pretty. Eq.2: is that \decay{\Bz}{\Kstarz\mumu} used in indices? The spaces around the arrows seem small. L.57: log-enhanced is jargon. Table 1: State-of-the-art -> Recent. No bold font in title line. L.105: "quasi-identical from a production point-of-view": what does this mean? L.106: what is the subject of "has"? L.112: "cell as that of the lepton" L.115: upstream -> such (or photons emitted upstream of the magnet) L.133: events -> signal L.135: events -> candidates L.135: also selected if triggered using ... (now this grammatically means the CALO and TIS efficiencies are 100%) L.157: following -> second (we were expecting something to come, explaining "following") L.162: events -> decays. Statistics -> data samples. L.171: \bquark hadrons L.187: add charges in Kpi L.192: best is undefined LHCb jargon L.207: "chosen to go as low as": what do you mean? We suggest "For this reason, the q^2 interval used to select B->J/psiK* candidates is [6.0, 11.0] GeV2/c4". L.228: kinematic distributions (?) L.237: events -> candidates Fig.2: the one -> that L.258: paper -> note Sec.7: use \boldmath L.293: \Km{}\pip L.318: You need to explain what K1 and K2 decay to in your simulation. L.333: events -> decays L.334: effect of the trigger requirements Fig.3: It seems some bins are outside the -5,+5sigma range for the pull plot. Sec 9: Do not use itemize to emulate description. L.366: remove events L.387: remove "out" L.398: uncorrelated between what? L.412: \B factories. But you called them otherwise in L.20. Also Fig.6. Fig.5: The labels are much too small. Are the curves without systematics useful? And if so, are these without any systematic as indicated or just without correlated systematics? Fig.6: align labels at end of axis as in other plots. [1] Kr"uger [11] collaboration [14] Why not 2016? [39] does "no. 1" convey any information? Remove p.21 Fig.8: labels and legend too small. Table 6: in percent
Cheers,
Patrick
On 14/03/17 13:23, Mick Mulder wrote:
Dear Maarten,
Here are my comments on the RK* note:
l. 46) Could you add that lepton universality holds to 0.1%, as BF( J/psi -> e+e-) / BF( J/psi ->mu+mu-) = 1.0016+-0.0031 ?
Table 1: the theoretical uncertainties and their central values vary quite a bit, but in the conclusion only the predictions from [19-21] are used for comparison. Would it not be better to take an average with the uncertainty given by the average absolute deviation? This gives me r_low_q^2 = 0.9189 +- 0.0191, r_mid_q^2 = 0.9977 +- 0.0015.
l. 109) bremsstrahlung radiation -> bremsstrahlung
l. 139) channels channels -> channels
l. 215) Are these background samples based on data candidates?
l. 246) viceversa -> vice versa
l. 296) Should the Bs mean value not be given by the Bd mean shifted by the PDG mass difference? Otherwise the ~5 MeV shift upwards of the Bd and Bs means is not taken into account for the Bs.
l. 362) Have you performed any checks to test this?
Table 4: the fit uncertainty seems to be not included in the total systematic. Does this mean the plots and significance estimates also did not include the systematic uncertainty for the fit?
l. 413) Is there a place in the note were I can read from a plot or can I compute by hand a rough estimate of the significance? Given the numbers in the note I would estimate a significance of 3.05 (3.12) sigma for the low (mid) q^2 bin, while we get 2.7 (3.1).
l. 420) Could you give a bit of information on which systematics are included in the R_Jpsi ratio, and how much they contribute?
Cheers,
Mick
Op 12/03/17 om 17:03 schreef Patrick Koppenburg:
Hi again,
Maarten kindly agreed to collect comments. Please send them by Thursday.
Thanks
Patrick
On 12/03/17 14:16, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
We've been lucky. The CONF note about K*ll is assigned to us. It's likely to be the most discussed result of the year. Please read asap as the deadline is quite close. I'll make sure we have a volunteer to gather comments.
Cheers,
Patrick
Patrick Koppenburg, Nikhef
-------- Message original -------- Objet : Conference report circulation: CONF-2017-003, Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays De : Michael Schmelling À : LHCb General mailing list Cc :
Dear colleagues, A conference report is available for your comments: Title: Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays Contact authors: Simone_Bifani, Francesco_Polci, Marie-Helene_Schune Reviewers: Vladimir_Gligorov (chair), Rafael_Silva_Coutinho, Franco_Bedeschi (EB) Analysis note: ANA-2015-016 Deadline: 17-Mar-2017 e-group: lhcb-conf-2017-003-reviewers Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2255344 Twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/BdToKstLL Institutes requested to submit comments on the report: Glasgow__United_Kingdom NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands Oxford__United_Kingdom Cambridge__United_Kingdom After the deadline, the reviewers are charged with approving the report for public release, once they are satisfied that all comments have been taken into account. You can find all reports 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 Best regards, Michael -- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603
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
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi Patrick, all,
I did not read the CONF note yet, but there is something that I do not understand. Looking at their ANA notehttps://svnweb.cern.ch/cern/wsvn/lhcbdocs/Notes/ANA/2015/016/latest/main.pdf table 15 (p.60), I see that the efficiency to select the signal (K* l l) or normalisation (K* Jpsi) are completely different. Does anyone understand why they are so different? What is the point of the normalisation channel if the efficiency is an order of magnitude different. I find this very worrying, but maybe I am missing something.
Cheers Jeroen
On 14 Mar, 2017, at 21:19 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <patrick.koppenburg@cern.chmailto:patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
H Maarten,
In spite of the CONF being dead I think we should still comment and also make textual suggestions. The CONF will be the basis of the paper, so whatever is done now does not need fixing later.
Here are my comments
Dear Simone, Francesco, Marie-Hélène,
Congratulations for this important result and the breakthrough in getting R_jpsi right.
Do we understand right that adding the two bins we get a 4.7 sigma evidence for New Physics? If so this is not a test of LU, this is evidence of LU. Adding uncertainties up very conservatively we get 4.2 sigma including RK. This is too serious business for a CONF.
Below are the detailed comments.
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We apply the same level of pedantry as for a paper as we consider to be a 0th draft of the paper.
Please note that questions asked imply something is not clear in the draft and therefore please consider a clarification in the paper.
Physics: L.245: 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). L.292: It is not clear why you add Lb backgrounds in the J/psi modes but not in the NR modes. The Lb->pKmumu decay is observed. Table 3: The extremely large corrections for L0H need a sentence of explanation. Also, your systematics are essentially the uncertainties on these correction factors. It would be nice to quote them here. 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? L.362: "expected" sounds like wishful thinking. Do they or do they not? L.364: It is not clear what this is supposed to catch. Why is that not correlated? 10.2: Why is the \psitwos cross-check not reported?
General: - Consistently use \mumu, \epem and \ellell. Sometimes you have charges, sometimes not. - Sec. 9: it would be useful if the correlated and uncorrelated uncertainties were grouped together.
Line-by-line: Abstract: please add some space around the + and - or the asymmetric errors. Systematics -> systematic. Correlated between what? footnote: ^{\rm th}$ L.11: no colon before equations L.20: suggest "At \epem collider operating ... resonance, the ratios... " to make clear what's consistent. L.29: as being -> as it is (or we do not understand the sentence) L.34: and K* L.46: K* meson Fig.1: the diagrams could be made more pretty. Eq.2: is that \decay{\Bz}{\Kstarz\mumu} used in indices? The spaces around the arrows seem small. L.57: log-enhanced is jargon. Table 1: State-of-the-art -> Recent. No bold font in title line. L.105: "quasi-identical from a production point-of-view": what does this mean? L.106: what is the subject of "has"? L.112: "cell as that of the lepton" L.115: upstream -> such (or photons emitted upstream of the magnet) L.133: events -> signal L.135: events -> candidates L.135: also selected if triggered using ... (now this grammatically means the CALO and TIS efficiencies are 100%) L.157: following -> second (we were expecting something to come, explaining "following") L.162: events -> decays. Statistics -> data samples. L.171: \bquark hadrons L.187: add charges in Kpi L.192: best is undefined LHCb jargon L.207: "chosen to go as low as": what do you mean? We suggest "For this reason, the q^2 interval used to select B->J/psiK* candidates is [6.0, 11.0] GeV2/c4". L.228: kinematic distributions (?) L.237: events -> candidates Fig.2: the one -> that L.258: paper -> note Sec.7: use \boldmath L.293: \Km{}\pip L.318: You need to explain what K1 and K2 decay to in your simulation. L.333: events -> decays L.334: effect of the trigger requirements Fig.3: It seems some bins are outside the -5,+5sigma range for the pull plot. Sec 9: Do not use itemize to emulate description. L.366: remove events L.387: remove "out" L.398: uncorrelated between what? L.412: \B factories. But you called them otherwise in L.20. Also Fig.6. Fig.5: The labels are much too small. Are the curves without systematics useful? And if so, are these without any systematic as indicated or just without correlated systematics? Fig.6: align labels at end of axis as in other plots. [1] Kr"uger [11] collaboration [14] Why not 2016? [39] does "no. 1" convey any information? Remove p.21 Fig.8: labels and legend too small. Table 6: in percent
Cheers,
Patrick
On 14/03/17 13:23, Mick Mulder wrote:
Dear Maarten,
Here are my comments on the RK* note:
l. 46) Could you add that lepton universality holds to 0.1%, as BF( J/psi -> e+e-) / BF( J/psi ->mu+mu-) = 1.0016+-0.0031 ?
Table 1: the theoretical uncertainties and their central values vary quite a bit, but in the conclusion only the predictions from [19-21] are used for comparison. Would it not be better to take an average with the uncertainty given by the average absolute deviation? This gives me r_low_q^2 = 0.9189 +- 0.0191, r_mid_q^2 = 0.9977 +- 0.0015.
l. 109) bremsstrahlung radiation -> bremsstrahlung
l. 139) channels channels -> channels
l. 215) Are these background samples based on data candidates?
l. 246) viceversa -> vice versa
l. 296) Should the Bs mean value not be given by the Bd mean shifted by the PDG mass difference? Otherwise the ~5 MeV shift upwards of the Bd and Bs means is not taken into account for the Bs.
l. 362) Have you performed any checks to test this?
Table 4: the fit uncertainty seems to be not included in the total systematic. Does this mean the plots and significance estimates also did not include the systematic uncertainty for the fit?
l. 413) Is there a place in the note were I can read from a plot or can I compute by hand a rough estimate of the significance? Given the numbers in the note I would estimate a significance of 3.05 (3.12) sigma for the low (mid) q^2 bin, while we get 2.7 (3.1).
l. 420) Could you give a bit of information on which systematics are included in the R_Jpsi ratio, and how much they contribute?
Cheers,
Mick
Op 12/03/17 om 17:03 schreef Patrick Koppenburg:
Hi again,
Maarten kindly agreed to collect comments. Please send them by Thursday.
Thanks
Patrick
On 12/03/17 14:16, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: Hi all,
We've been lucky. The CONF note about K*ll is assigned to us. It's likely to be the most discussed result of the year. Please read asap as the deadline is quite close. I'll make sure we have a volunteer to gather comments.
Cheers,
Patrick
Patrick Koppenburg, Nikhef
-------- Message original -------- Objet : Conference report circulation: CONF-2017-003, Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays De : Michael Schmelling À : LHCb General mailing list Cc :
Dear colleagues,
A conference report is available for your comments:
Title: Lepton universality test with $B^0\to K^{*0} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays
Contact authors: Simone_Bifani, Francesco_Polci, Marie-Helene_Schune Reviewers: Vladimir_Gligorov (chair), Rafael_Silva_Coutinho, Franco_Bedeschi (EB) Analysis note: ANA-2015-016 Deadline: 17-Mar-2017 e-group: lhcb-conf-2017-003-reviewers Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2255344 Twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/BdToKstLL
Institutes requested to submit comments on the report: Glasgow__United_Kingdom NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands Oxford__United_Kingdom Cambridge__United_Kingdom
After the deadline, the reviewers are charged with approving the report for public release, once they are satisfied that all comments have been taken into account. You can find all reports 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, Michael
-- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603
_______________________________________________ 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.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contacthttp://www.nikhef.nl/%7Epkoppenb/#contact
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nlmailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
_______________________________________________ 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.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nlmailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Jeroen Van Tilburg -
Mick Mulder -
Patrick Koppenburg