Dear all,

Is one of you willing to prepare a summary of the draft of The first observation of a new Bs decay mode ? http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1316178 If so, we can discuss it with the people available on Friday morning 7 January.

Please, let us know when you are interested.

Best regards, Tjeerd and Thomas

============================================================ Summary of the Friday 7 January 2011 Bfys Meeting at Nikhef ============================================================ Present: Gerhard Raven Wouter Hulsbergen, Jan Amoraal, Niels Tuning, Serena Oggero, Siim Tolk, Eddy Jans, Thomas Bauer, Tjeerd Ketel. Connected via EVO: Kazu Carvalho Akiba, Barbara Storaci.

Niels prepared a presentation about the draft 'First observation of Bs -> D*s2 X mu- nu decays' and included questions about the analysis. Other critical remarks were made by Gerhard, Wouter and Thomas. The presentation is available on the Nikhef calendar.

The questions and remarks will be worked out to comments from the Nikhef group that will be submitted to LHCb before the deadline on Friday next week. ============================================================

Hi all,

I have updated my slides : http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/110118Veldhoven.pdf

Thanks for your comments

Patrick

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 16:42 +0100, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Bfys Meeting Friday 14 January 9:00-10:00 hours in N328

Dear Colleagues,

We have booked a Bfys meeting in N328 (and EVO) 9:00 'New LHCb data on charm production' (Veldhoven rehearsal) Thomas Bauer

Best regards, Tjeerd =================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1369 =================================================================== You have BOOKED a meeting in EVO (http://evo.caltech.edu).

Title: Nikhef Description: Bfys Meeting 9:00-10:00 Community: LHCb Password: n328

Meeting Access Information:

• Meeting URL

EVO Phone Bridge Telephone Numbers:

• Switzerland (CERN, Geneva) +41 22 76 71400

• Netherlands (Nikhef, Amsterdam) +31 20 7165293 Dial '2' at the prompt

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

Bfys Meeting Friday 18 February 9:30-11:00 hours in N328

Dear Colleagues,

I have booked a bfys meeting in N328 with EVO for Friday 18 February 9:30-11:00 h - News - Measurement of J/psi production in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV - Letter of Intent for the LHCb Upgrade Both documents are available for final comments http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1328363 and https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/LHCb/LHCbUpgrade/LOI.pdf

If you have comments on the papers which you would like to bring up in the Nikhef group, please, prepare a slide about it.

Best regards, Tjeerd =================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1418 =================================================================== Title: Nikhef Bfys Description: Meeting 9.30-11.00 Community: LHCb Password: n328

Meeting Access Information: - Meeting URL EVO Phone Bridge Telephone Numbers: --------------- - Switzerland (CERN, Geneva) +41 22 76 71400

- Netherlands (Nikhef, Amsterdam) +31 20 7165293 Dial '2' at the prompt ===================================================================

Bfys Meeting Friday 25 February 9:30-10:30 hours in H331

Dear Colleagues,

I have booked a bfys meeting in H311 with EVO for Friday 25 February 9:30-10:30 h (NOTE: the same room as for the 11:00 Colloquium !!) - Antonio Pellegrino Search for the rare decays B0subS->mu+mu- and B0->mu+mu- (20') - Discussion of the paper (40') http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1330372

If you have comments on the paper which you would like to bring up in the Nikhef group, please, prepare a slide about it and upload to the Nikhef Calendar.

Best regards, Tjeerd =================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1432 =================================================================== Title: Nikhef Description: Bfys Meeting 9.30-10.30 Community: LHCb Password: n328

Meeting Access Information: - Meeting URL http://evo.caltech.edu/evoNext/koala.jnlp?meeting=M9MIMi2I2vDeDB999iDD99

Phone Bridge ID 297 6169 Phone Bridge Pwd 6287 EVO Phone Bridge Telephone Numbers: --------------- - Switzerland (CERN, Geneva) +41 22 76 71400

- Netherlands (Nikhef, Amsterdam) +31 20 7165293 Dial '2' at the prompt ===================================================================

Hi everyone,

just to clarify a bit:

Tomorrow I will discuss this conference note:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1333064/files/CONF-2011-001.pdf

I will also tell something about the conference note on the untagged analysis for JpsiPhi and JpsiKstar. That analysis is very related to the first one, but the conference note is not in a good enough shape yet to be commented on by the collaboration (but will very shortly appear).

So I suggest not to read the 91 pages analysis note that was in Tjeerd's mail, but only the conference note that is in the link above!

See you tomorrow,

cheers,

Daan

Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Bfys Meeting Friday 4 March 9:00-10:45 hours in N328

Dear Colleagues,

I have booked a bfys meeting in N328 with EVO for Friday 4 March 9:00-10:45 h

• 9.00 Daan van Eijk: Analysis of 'b-hadron lifetime measurements with exclusive b->JpsiX decays reconstructed in the 2010 data' Also analysis issues that are related to 'Untagged angular analysis of Bs->JpsiPhi and Bd->JpsiK* using 2010 data' which is to appear soon. This related draft can be found at https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/LHCbPhysics/LHCbBetasWGnote2/Note2-v32.pdf
• 10.00 Marcel Merk: News
• 10.10 Comments on this draft If you have comments on the papers which you would like to bring up in the Nikhef group, please, prepare a slide about it and put it it at the Nikhef agenda page.
• 10.45 End of the meeting

The following drafts have a dead line for comments of 14 March and can be found at http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/edboard/Version2010/editorial-board.html Select: Current drafts

1. Measurement of direct CP violation in charmless charged two-body B decays at LHCb - LHCB-B2HH-002
2. Measurement of Delta ms in the decay Bs0→Ds−(K+K−π−)(3)π - LHCB-DMS-001
3. Measurement of Delta md in B0->D-(K+pi-pi-)pi+. LHCB-DMD-001
4. Optimization and calibration of the LHCb tagging performances using 2010 data. LHCB-TAGGING-001
5. b-hadron lifetime measurements with exclusive b->JpsiX decays reconstructed in the 2010 data. LHCB-JPSILIFE-001
6. Measurements of the Cabibbo favoured decays Xb to Xcpipipi. LHCB-CF3PI-001

On Monday 7 March (time to be decided on Friday) Jeroen van Leerdam will discuss the analysis of 'Measurement of direct CP violation in charmless charged two-body B decays at LHCb' with a following collection of comments.

With these two meetings we will cover only two (5 and 1) out of the six drafts menstioned above with 14 March as a dead line. On Monday 14 March (last day) we should consider a last session about draft 2 and 3 and the collection of comments about all remaining drafts.

Please, read draft 5 before Friday and draft 1 before Monday.

Best regards, Tjeerd

=================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1442 =================================================================== EVO LHCb: Title: Nikhef Bfys Description: Meeting 9.00-10:45 Community: LHCb Password: n328

Meeting Access Information:

• Meeting URL Phone Bridge ID: 301 1766 / 6287

EVO Phone Bridge Telephone Numbers:

• Switzerland (CERN, Geneva) +41 22 76 71400

• Netherlands (Nikhef, Amsterdam) +31 20 7165293 Dial '2' at the prompt

===================================================================

---

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

Bfys Meeting Change from 7 March to Tuesday 8 March 9:30-11:45 hours in H135

Dear Colleagues,

The previously announced meeting on Monday 7 March is cancelled.

I have now booked a bfys meeting in H135 with EVO for Tuesday 8 March 9:30-10:15 hours (NOTE: the small but available room) - 9:30 Jeroen van Eijk: Analysis of 'Measurement of direct CP violation in charmless charged two-body B decays at LHCb' - 10:30 Comments on this draft If you have comments on the papers which you would like to bring up in the Nikhef group, please, prepare a slide about it and put it it at the Nikhef agenda page. - 11:15 Niels Tuning will activate your appetite to read draft 'Optimization and calibration of the LHCb tagging performances using 2010 data'

The following drafts have a dead line for comments of 14 March and can be found at http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/edboard/Version2010/editorial-board.html Select: Current drafts 1. Measurement of direct CP violation in charmless charged two-body B decays at LHCb - LHCB-B2HH-002 2. Measurement of Delta ms in the decay Bs0→Ds−(K+K−π−)(3)π - LHCB-DMS-001 3. Measurement of Delta md in B0->D-(K+pi-pi-)pi+. LHCB-DMD-001 4. Optimization and calibration of the LHCb tagging performances using 2010 data. LHCB-TAGGING-001 5. b-hadron lifetime measurements with exclusive b->JpsiX decays reconstructed in the 2010 data. LHCB-JPSILIFE-001 6. Measurements of the Cabibbo favoured decays Xb to Xcpipipi. LHCB-CF3PI-001

With this and todays meeting we will cover only two (5 and 1) out of the six drafts menstioned above with 14 March as a dead line. On Monday 14 March (last day) we should consider a session about draft 2 and 3 and the collection of comments about all remaining drafts.

Please, read draft 1 before Tuesday and the remaining drafs before March 14.

Best regards, Tjeerd

=================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1444 ===================================================================

Currently, the draft for tomorrow is number 4: "Direct CPV in charmless charged two-body B decays" (56 pages analysis note on http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/edboard/Version2010/editorial-board.html). There is also a conference note (20 pages, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/LHCbPhysics/B2hhCPV/b2hhcpv_conf_report_v3.p...)

Cheers,

Jeroen

On 03/07/2011 03:28 PM, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

This is to remind you to read draft 1, which will be discussed tomorrow.

Best regards, Tjeerd

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

...

Bfys Meeting Change from 7 March to Tuesday 8 March 9:30-11:45 hours in H135

Dear Colleagues,

The previously announced meeting on Monday 7 March is cancelled.

I have now booked a bfys meeting in H135 with EVO for Tuesday 8 March 9:30-10:15 hours (NOTE: the small but available room)

• 9:30 Jeroen van Eijk: Analysis of 'Measurement of direct CP violation in charmless charged two-body B decays at LHCb'
• 10:30 Comments on this draft If you have comments on the papers which you would like to bring up in the Nikhef group, please, prepare a slide about it and put it it at the Nikhef agenda page.
• 11:15 Niels Tuning will activate your appetite to read draft 'Optimization and calibration of the LHCb tagging performances using 2010 data'

The following drafts have a dead line for comments of 14 March and can be found at http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/edboard/Version2010/editorial-board.html Select: Current drafts

1. Measurement of direct CP violation in charmless charged two-body B decays at LHCb - LHCB-B2HH-002
2. Measurement of Delta ms in the decay Bs0→Ds−(K+K−π−)(3)π - LHCB-DMS-001
3. Measurement of Delta md in B0->D-(K+pi-pi-)pi+. LHCB-DMD-001
4. Optimization and calibration of the LHCb tagging performances using 2010 data. LHCB-TAGGING-001
5. b-hadron lifetime measurements with exclusive b->JpsiX decays reconstructed in the 2010 data. LHCB-JPSILIFE-001
6. Measurements of the Cabibbo favoured decays Xb to Xcpipipi. LHCB-CF3PI-001

With this and todays meeting we will cover only two (5 and 1) out of the six drafts menstioned above with 14 March as a dead line. On Monday 14 March (last day) we should consider a session about draft 2 and 3 and the collection of comments about all remaining drafts.

Please, read draft 1 before Tuesday and the remaining drafs before March 14.

Best regards, Tjeerd

=================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1444 =================================================================== _______________________________________________ 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

Dear all,

For your convenience, I collected info (slides, CONF note, ANA note and comments) here: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1449

Meeting is in N328, in 5 min.

Cheers, Niels

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

This morning we skipped the presentation by Niels Tuning. Tomorrow we will have this presentation in room N328 at the only time a room is available in the morning with EVO.

• 11:15 Niels Tuning will activate your appetite to read draft 'Optimization and calibration of the LHCb tagging performances using 2010 data'

On Monday 14 March we foresee to go through this and the remaining drafts for comments.

Best regards, Tjeerd _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics

--

Hi Tjeerd, et al,

This morning I kept track of the following comments made to the tagging conference note. Please check if I understood your comments correctly. (Marcel or Tjeerd will probably send these comments soonish to the proponents?)

Cheers, Niels

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) page 2, line 49/50. B*, B**. We would like to see the invariant mass distribution of the B+pi and B+pipi final state, to see the contribution (and/or potential) of B* and B** for the same-side tagging. (In fact, this is might be an interesting topic on its own.)

2) page 6, Fig. 4, mixed/unmixed, B0/B0bar. We would be interested to see the mass and proper time distribution separately for the four samples, corresponding to mixed/unmixed and B0/B0bar events, respectively. These four distributions might reveal differences between B0 and B0bar samples, and differences in the background behaviour (e.g. as function of proper time). In particular, this might be interesting for the B0->J/psiK*0, which shows a large difference in tagging performance between B0 and B0bar.

3) page 10, Table 2. 'Average'. We think the distinction between 'average' and 'combined' perfromance is confusing, and probably not needed. We would propose to omit the 'average' results and only quote the 'combined' results.

4) page 10, line 182. pT(B) dependence. The calculated mistag rate does not depend on pT(B), as shown in Fig.8. However, one really would like to know if the actual _measured_ mistag rate does not depend on pT(B). If indeed the data size does not allow to study this, we propose to add at least an extra sentence, at line 182: "... the average does not depend on the pT of the B. The data sample size does not yet allow to investigate the measured mistag rate as a function of the pT of the B, but results from simulation show that the true mistag rate is also not dependent on the pT of the B [7]."

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

This morning we skipped the presentation by Niels Tuning. Tomorrow we will have this presentation in room N328 at the only time a room is available in the morning with EVO.

• 11:15 Niels Tuning will activate your appetite to read draft 'Optimization and calibration of the LHCb tagging performances using 2010 data'

On Monday 14 March we foresee to go through this and the remaining drafts for comments.

Best regards, Tjeerd _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics

--

Comments on direct CPV in charmless charged two-body B decays

Dear all,

Here are the comments I collected during the Bfys Meeting on Tuesday 8 March. I also added a few in the process of writing. Please, correct and improve the text below before Monday.

Best regards, Tjeerd -----------------------------------

Dear authors,

We like to compliment you with this nice, in some places easy and other places difficult to read, paper. Our comments are grouped in: (i) comments on the content and (ii) suggestions for the text.

(i) Comments on the content: ============================ lines 37-63: Remove the text about stripping and Table 1.

This part was not found informative for the reader, as the off-line selections supersede the stripping cuts.

Figure 2: Add "preliminary" in the figure. Increase the size of the numbers and text at the axes. Draw MC as histogram and data as filled circles.

These are supposed to be the rules. And they applies also to following figures. Question: Are the "number of events" also normalized for the data? If not, than "normalized" is not needed on the axis. The caption could start as "Inclusive data sample of ..."

lines 141-143: Do not we have 16 categories? Should not "mutually exclusive" imply more cuts in Table 4 and 5?

lines 141-162: This part is very dense in information and we easily overlooked important statements here. Maybe lines 161-162 could move to 144. Or find other ways to make this text more accessible.

Figures 6-9: Change the order of treatment to 6, 8, 9, and then 7.

It becomes clearer that ACP^RAW is the result of a simultaneous fit.

line 193: "apparent" is not so apparent from the result for the tighter cut, which is less accurate in the end.

Even before unblinding the larger uncertainty should have been apparent, isn't it? Is there an other reason why this result with tighter cuts is shown?

(ii) Suggestions for the text: ============================= Abstract: Add "(stat.)" and "(syst.)" after 0.033 and 0.008, respectively.

It is the first time that you assign double errors in this paper.

line 7 and 306: Suggestion to change "preliminary measurements" to "preliminary values"

"Preliminary" is correct. It should also appear in all figures with data in this paper. "measurement" in combination with "preliminary" is ambiguous. Other colleagues would allow for this kind of jargon.

line 8: Use decay probability "Gamma" in stead of "N", or define N here as "decay rate".

A_CP is the physics variable, not the raw asymmetry. Therefore, N is not the measured numbers of decays.

line 245: Eq.(5) Use production cross section "sigma" in stead of "N", or define N here as "production rate".

These are the only places where "N" is used, as A^raw is not defined. So the second option with "N" as "rate" is possible.

lines 10-15: Suggestion to combine 10-11 in one sentence.

This shortens the second sentence in lines 11-15.

Fig. 1 The sketch could be a drawing, if its quality is improved.

Other colleagues would only allow for this quality in a conference note.

lines 82-83: Change "tau^B_pipi" to "t_pipi". Move this "t_pipi" to "... on the lifetime of the B candidate, t_pipi, calculated under ..." Change "tau" also in Tables 2 and 3 and in Fig. 2.

"tau" should be reserved for "average lifetime" or "mean life". Here "t" is the calculated time each candidate lived from the measured decay length.

line 138: Replace "dangerous" by something less dangerous.

line 147: Change to "... statistics a second Gaussian in the signal model was not needed."

Figure 6: Use "positive charge conjugate". Add ... to the fit model "explained in the text" are also shown.

Equation (4) Could this equation be given in the introduction? Or maybe including Eqs (5) and (6) with the explanation? ACP^RAW is used in section 4, before this equation.

line 238 The entry 0.0001 seems to be very small. A factor 100 smaller than for B0s!

line 245, 259, 295, 298: Use "asymmetry" instead of "physical asymmetry".

ACP is defined in line 8 as the asymmetry. The uncorrected asymmetry is indicated by its label RAW, be it without proper definition.

Table 10: Replace "Reason" by "Systematic uncertainty". Caption, 2nd line: "The total systematic uncertainties given in the last row ..."

line 307: "The ICHEP2010 update of ACP(B0->... [15] and the CDF .... [4] are in agreement with our preliminary values."

"Current world average" is nice in a presentation, but less in a publication. "In agreement" contains more information than "can be compared". It is also the last sentence that will catch some attention.

Bfys Meeting Monday 14 March 14:00-15:30 hours in H331

Dear Colleagues,

I have booked a bfys meeting in H331 with EVO for Monday 14 March at 14:00

We will have no introduction on the analysis and start direcly with our comments the drafts. - 14:00 Comments on: (5) Measurement on Delta ms in the decay B0s->Ds-(K+K-pi-)(3)pi - 14:30 Comments on: (6) Measurement on Delta md in B0->D-(K+pi-pi-)pi+ - 15:00 Final comments on the other drafts 4, 7, and 8, which we discussed before and for which comments already circulatedi internally. It was decided that draft 9 will not be discussed, unless somebody wants to bring up his comments.

The following drafts have a dead line for comments of 14 March and can be found at http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/edboard/Version2010/editorial-board.html Select: Current drafts 4. Measurement of direct CP violation in charmless charged two-body B decays at LHCb, LHCB-B2HH-002 5. Measurement on Delta ms in the decay B0s->Ds-(K+K-pi-)(3)pi, LHCB-DMS-001 6. Measurement on Delta md in B0->D-(K+pi-pi-)pi+, LHCB-DMD-001 7. Optimization and calibration of the LHCb tagging performances using 2010 data, LHCB-TAGGING-001 8. b-hadron lifetime measurements with exclusive b->JpsiX decays reconstructed in the 2010 data, LHCB-JPSILIFE-001 9. Measurements of the Cabibbo favoured decays Xb to Xcpipipi, LHCB-CF3PI-001

Please, read draft 5 and 6 before Monday.

Best regards, Tjeerd

=================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1457 ===================================================================

Dear Marcel and others,

Have a look at the comments I collected this afternoon about the Delta ms draft.

Tjeerd ====================================================== Comments on Delta ms

Dear authors, We discussed your high quality draft at Nikhef and come with a few comments and questions about the content. Also suggestions for the text are given.

Many comments also apply to the Delta md paper. Please, be so kind to apply similar corrections to both drafts.

Comments on the content: ======================== line 12-19: Are the cuts really equal to those of the road map? If they are not, add an overview of the cuts in an appendix.

line 20: Why don't we include the Same-Side flavour tag as we did in Refs [3] and [4]?

Fig. 2: The combinatorial background candidates show a similar \eta_c distribution. Is this good or bad? Please, discuss this. Naively, we expect a peak at 0.5 for random combinations.

Eq. (6) belongs in the introduction.

Comments in the text: =====================

Abstract: Change to 'The mixing frequency \Delta m_s is measured with 35 pb^-1 data taken during the LHCb physics run in 2010.' '... with a proper time resolution of 36-44 fs. By using ..." 'The preliminary mixing frequency ... is measured.'

The blinded analysis is too prominent in the abstract. It is just one of the tools among many. Typing error frequency. The number 35 pb^-1 should be known between 34.5 and 35.5. Why don't we stick to one number for present analysis, 37 pb^-1 ? 36-44 fs does not look like an average. The presented value is the preliminary one for these data.

line 1: Replace by 'The measurement reported by CDF in 2006 [1] is'

line 17: '... its momentum and transverse momentum and on those values of its decay particles'.

The pion and kaon are not stable particles. line 20: '... have been optimized ...'

line 21: 'This calibration have been adjusted ...'

Eq. (2) and text and Eq.(8): Replace 'P_i^B' by 'P_i^bkg'

P^B for background when the B-meson is the signal is confusing.

line 29: '..., q is the decision of the flavour tagging algorithm, and eta_c is its calibrated mis-tag probability.'

It was not clear that q is the decision outcome of the algorithm.

line 39: 'Without proper time uncertainty, without event selection bias and without flavour tagging, the proper time probability distribution of the B_s signal is described by,'

Important to exclude flavour tagging here in the text. What is 'perfect'? Why '... or ...'?

line 43 (sub 10): 'The width of this time distribution is defined here as the width of a pull distribution which directly corresponds ...'

We need a definition of the pull distribution mentioned in the caption of Fig. 1(left).

line 43 (sub 15): 'into account by convolution with a single Gaussian G, the proper ...'

It is nice to mention the convolution operation in the text.

Figure 1: The figures are too small. Remove '~' before 35 pb^-1. Put 'LHCb preliminary', 'sqrt s = 7 TeV', and '35 pb^-1' in one box.

line 46: '... candidates as shown in Fig. 1(center,right).'

Eq.(6): 'P_t(t|\sigma_t,\epsilon) = ...'

Without this extra \epsilon, Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) disagree. We have to change the name when we change the definition.

Eq. (7): '\epsilon(t)= \frac{N_rec^MC(t_rec)}{N_gen^MC(t_rec)}\approx \frac{N_rec^MC(t_rec)}{\frac{1}{\tau}........'

'reconstructed MC events' is unusual in an equation and in this case the meaning is not clear. Approximate \approx is more appropriate than proportional to \prop.

lines 48-51: Rewrite these sentences. For example: 'The efficiency function is determined from Monte-Carlo input. If we chose this \epsilon(t) as the proper time acceptance, the systematic uncertainty in the asymmetry of mixed and unmixed events used for the determination of the mixing frequency will be small as \epsilon(t) cancels in the ratio of the difference and the sum.'

The efficiency function changed into the proper time acceptance without a word. 'potential not completely correct' is a strange description. 'generous uncertainty' does not make sense. Asymmetries are calculated from ratios of differences and sums. Such a statement helps to understand line 48.

line 68, 69: Explain what you mean by 'Generator level mass templates'. Avoid to refer forward to line 75 with 'offset observed in the reconstructed B0s mass in data'

The 'templates' are probably mentioned in Figs 3 and 4 An example, how this is done for one resonance background, may help to understand what is meant by this jargon.

Figs 3-5: The text and numbers are too small.

line 89: 'The signal proper time probability distribution function is changed by the addition of the tagging information as'

Eq. (6): 'P_t(t|\sigma_t,\epsilon,q,\eta_c) = ...' The equation is incorrect for q=\pm 1.

Same comment as for Eq.(6) The product of cosh and cos should not occur. The definition of q=0 is strange. q is either -1 or +1. Maybe a solution can be found without q=0 and by using the tagging efficiency, \epsilon_sig.

line 118: Add 'Or that we have a statistical fluctuation.'

line 124: Correct 'rage' to 'range'. Also in \Delta m_d draft. Change 'generously' in 'conservatively'.

line 127 Change the word 'need'.

It gives the wrong message. If you needed it the analysis should have been done with 2G.

line 131, 132: It is not clear why 'extreme scenario's and very hard cuts' are used.

Table 3 and line 142: Why are \eta_c and \sigma_t(. ?) taken together in one contribution? As asked before; why would we expect same \eta_c p.d.f. for signal and background?

line 155: Add 'preliminary' as proposed for abstract.

Dear colleagues,

Is anybody interested to explain the analysis of the conference drafts "Measurement of the Upsilon(1S) production cross section at sqrt(s)= 7 TeV in LHCb", or "Inclusive jets and dijets in LHCb" on Friday morning 17 March? Please, let me know.

17 March is also the dead line of comments on these drafts. Best regards, Tjeerd

First announcement:

Maartje Jacobs will give a presentation about her bachelor project next week on Wednesday 13 April at 16:00 in N328.

Bfys Meeting Wednesday 13 April 16:00-16:30 hours in N328

Dear Colleagues,

I have booked a bfys meeting in N328 at Wednesday 13 April March 16:00 'Mass resolution of K0S and Lambda in LHCb' Bachelor project presentation by Maartje Jacobs

Best regards, Tjeerd

=================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1470 ===================================================================

Bfys Meeting Wednesday 20 April 10:00-12:00 hours in N328

Dear Colleagues,

I have booked a bfys meeting in N328 with EVO for Wednesday 20 April: - 10:00 Wouter Hulsbergen: Analysis of 'Tagged time-dependent angular analysis of B0s->J/Psi phi decays with the 2010 LHCb data'. - 11:00 Comments on this draft If you have comments on this paper or the other two mentioned below, which you would like to bring up in the Nikhef group, please, prepare a slide about it and post it at the Nikhef agenda page.

The following drafts have a dead line for comments of 20 April and can be found at http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/edboard/Version2010/editorial-board.html Select: Current drafts 1. Measurement of the X(3872) mass - LHCB-XMASS-001 2. W and Z production at sqrt(s)=7 TeV with the LHCb experiment - LHCB-WZPROD-001 3. Tagged time-dependent angular analysis of B0s->J/Psi phi decays with the 2010 LHCb data - LHCB-PHIS-001

Please, read draft 3 before Wednesday 20 April.

Best regards, Tjeerd

=================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1473

EVO password n328 in the LHCb community ===================================================================

============================================================ Summary of the Wednesday 20 April 2011 Bfys Meeting at Nikhef ============================================================ Present: Gerhard Raven, Wouter Hulsbergen, Daan van Eijk, Alexandr Koszlinkiy, Kristof de Bruyn, Jeroen van Leerdam, Chiara Farinelli, Serena Oggero, Marcel Merk, Thomas Bauer, Tjeerd Ketel. Connected via EVO: Veerle Heijne, Roel Aaij.

News (Marcel): - Beauty 2011 was a big success. - Tom Blake will start as postdoc after summer. Rob Lambert will start as postdoc in October. Manuel Schiller still has to decide when to start as a postdoc. Maurizio Martinelli will start as postdoc on 15 July. - Rose Koopman will start as a new OIO on 15 May with Niels. Pieter David will start as a new OIO on 1 September with Wouter. Siim Tolk start as a new OIO with Antonio. Suvaya Ali start as a new OIO om 15 July. - Els Koffeman will join LHCb Upgrade for 50 % of her time. - Nikhef contributions to the LHCb upgrade will be formalized the coming months.

J/Psi phi draft: Wouter explained the analysis. There was a lot of discussion. At the end comments on the draft were collected. Below I add the comments that I submitted Wednesday evening.

Best regards, Tjeerd ============================================================

Comments to the conference note on 'Tagged time-dependent angular analysis of B0s->J/Psi phi decays with the 2010 LHCb data'.

We discussed this draft in our group at Nikhef and we liked the analysis very much. We add comments about the draft in the attachment.

Best regards, Tjeerd Ketel

================================================================= Abstract: Replace 'Projecting ... we find ... at 68% CL.' by 'We derive a region for phi_s at 68 % CL of ..'

Both the 'projection' and the 'frequentist's p-value' are too much a technical elaboration to have them in the abstract.

Also 'Projecting' is not the correct description. 'The marginal distribution' or 'the partial integrated distribution' are good alternatives. This also applies to lines 195 and 204.

Line 5: Write 'B-mesons and anti-B-mesons'.

Line 8: Replace 'gives ...' by 'was performed by Ref. [1] with ...'

It should be clear that the result is a value from a reference.

Line 38: Replace 'In the long term ... is also ...' by 'In the future ... will be ...'.

Line 45: Remove 'Understanding of the acceptance ... phi_s' or change it.

In section 2.5 the statement is that the measurement is insensitive to the acceptance. This situation makes line 45 true, but irrelevant.

line 44-49: Remove 'With current ... under control' or change it.

This is a very weak statement. One might start to doubt that the systematics are 'under control'.

Line 57: Add '(see Fig. 1)'

In this figure the three angles are defined.

Print 'Omega' bold.

Omega is a vector of three variables and not the space angle.

Line 65: Change to 'proper lifetime' or 'proper decay time'.

Time is not specified.

Line 98: Give the definitions of A_i and delta_i.

Change this list into an equation array with Equation number, or into a table with a Table number and a caption.

This also applies to lines 110 and 140.

Eq. (11): Replace 'p_0' by 'p_0 + <eta>', or make a similar change.

Now p_0 is an offset parameter that is expected be zero, as p_1 is a multiplication factor that is expected to be unity. With this change, line 112 becomes correct.

line 110 Remove 'rho(p_0,p_1)'.

Rho is not discussed.

line 127: Add to 'Bbar0s' 'that may be as large as 8 %.'. Or explain why 8 % is chosen. Or remove 8 %.

The value of 8 % is not motivated.

Fig.2 caption: Replace 'Fitted curves ... of proper time ... candidates.' by 'Background contribution in B0s->J/Psi phi events as a function of proper decay time and the fitted curve using the sPlot method [20].'

First mention the points and the axes and then the curve. Specify 'time'. The range is obvious. The meaning of candidates is not clear. 'the background sPlot of proper time' is not clear.

Replace 'sPlot of per-event time errors for signal (triangles) and background (full circles) for B0s->J/Psi phi events' by 'Per-event proper time error distribution for signal event (red triangles) and background events (black circles) of B0s->J/Psi phi'.

The meaning of 'sPlot ... errors' is not clear. Also the triangles are full, but they are red, different from the circles.

Line 105: Add the parametrization and the fitted parameters.

'Empirical' alone is vague. The chosen parametrization may be useful.

Line 170: Give information on the resolution and the acceptance or change the title of section 2.5.

Only the effect of the resolution and the acceptance is discussed. Why not 'decay angle distributions in the transversity frame'. What are 'angular amplitudes'?

Line 183: Change '... change ... only very little' by 'have an insignificant effect on ...'

Line 244: Add 'NIM A555 (2005) 356-369'. Change '04020834' to '0402083'. =========================================================

Dear friends,

The Bfys meeting on Friday May 15 at 14h00 is dedicated to planning for the LHCb upgrade. The agenda will have the following topics: 1) Summary of the physics programme - Marcel 2) The OT upgrade project - Antonio     - Electronics     - Mechanics 3) The Velo upgrade project     - Timepix/Velopix - Martin     - Mechanics (RF-box) - Eddy     - Cooling - Eddy/Els/Martin

=================================================================== Upload to Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1479 ===================================================================

On Mon, 2 May 2011, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

fys Meeting at Friday afternoon 13 May 14:00-16:00 hours in N328

Dear Colleagues,

I have booked a bfys meeting in N328 at 13 May 14:00-16:00 hours. The subject is: "The LHCB Upgrade plans". A more detail program will follow.

Please, let me know before 11 May if you wish to follow the meeting by EVO.

Best regards, Tjeerd

=================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1479 =================================================================== _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics

Hi, Will there be an EVO connection for the meeting? Roel and me would like to join, sorry for the late notice... Cheers, Veerle

Citeren Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl:

Dear friends,

The Bfys meeting on Friday May 15 at 14h00 is dedicated to planning for the LHCb upgrade. The agenda will have the following topics:

1. Summary of the physics programme - Marcel
2. The OT upgrade project - Antonio

- Electronics     - Mechanics 3) The Velo upgrade project     - Timepix/Velopix - Martin     - Mechanics (RF-box) - Eddy     - Cooling - Eddy/Els/Martin

=================================================================== Upload to Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1479 ===================================================================

On Mon, 2 May 2011, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

...

fys Meeting at Friday afternoon 13 May 14:00-16:00 hours in N328

Dear Colleagues,

I have booked a bfys meeting in N328 at 13 May 14:00-16:00 hours. The subject is: "The LHCB Upgrade plans". A more detail program will follow.

Please, let me know before 11 May if you wish to follow the meeting by EVO.

Best regards, Tjeerd

=================================================================== Nikhef Calendar: http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1479 =================================================================== _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics

Dear colleagues,

I prepared my comments for the Conference draft 2011-017 with a dead line for comments of 6 April. Please, add, remove or question comments as you wishi, before I send them on Tuesday.

Best regards, Tjeerd

Citeren Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl:

Dear colleagues,

In the coming week we have the opportunity to comment on 5 conference publications (mentioned below). Is any of you interested to explain the analysis and organise the collection of comments of one of these drafts?

Yes: Please, organise a meeting at a time of your convenience. Check a room and send the invitation. I advise you not to bother about EVO if you have no former good experience in setting it up.

No, but you do have comments: Please, circulate them to inform the Nikhef group and to join forces together. Do not forget to post them yourself at the page of the Editorial Board at the day of the corresponding dead line.

Unfortunately, I will away this week. The next week of Beauty2011 will also be rather busy, I am afraid.

Best regards, Tjeerd ======================================= At the Editorial Board page of LHCb the Current Drafts on 19 March contained 10 LHCb Publication Drafts:

1. 'Relative measurement of the Bc+ to B+ production cross-section at

sqrt(s)=7 TeV in LHCb', CONF-2011-017 comment before 6/4

2. Untagged angular analysis of Bd0->J/Psi K* and Bs->J/Psi phi decays',

CONF-2011-002 comment before 4/4

3. 'Measurement of the relative yields of the decay modes B0(s) ->

D+(s)pi- and B0 -> D+K- and determination of fs/fd for 7 TeV pp collisions' CONF-2011-013, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1336765, comment before 31/3

4. 'First observation of the decay Bs -> D0K*0 and measurement of the

ratio of branching fractions B(Bs -> D0K*0)/B(B0 -> D0rho0)', CONF-2011-008, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1336754 comment before 31/3

5. 'Observation of double J/Psi production in proton-proton collisions

at a centre-of-mass energy of sqrt(s)=7 TeV', CONF-2011-009 comment before 30/3

For 6-10 the dead lines for comments have passed. On 7-10 we gave comments, but did not comment on their answers. =======================================

---

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

Dear colleagues,

I submitted comments to 'Untagged angular analysis of Bd0->JPsiK* and Bs0->JPsi phi decays' just before the dead line this evening. Clearly too late to consult you, so I did it privately. It was received as comment number 3.

Best regards, Tjeerd

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Dear colleagues,

In the coming week we have the opportunity to comment on 5 conference publications (mentioned below). Is any of you interested to explain the analysis and organise the collection of comments of one of these drafts?

Yes: Please, organise a meeting at a time of your convenience. Check a room and send the invitation. I advise you not to bother about EVO if you have no former good experience in setting it up.

No, but you do have comments: Please, circulate them to inform the Nikhef group and to join forces together. Do not forget to post them yourself at the page of the Editorial Board at the day of the corresponding dead line.

Unfortunately, I will away this week. The next week of Beauty2011 will also be rather busy, I am afraid.

Best regards, Tjeerd ======================================= At the Editorial Board page of LHCb the Current Drafts on 19 March contained 10 LHCb Publication Drafts:

1. 'Relative measurement of the Bc+ to B+ production cross-section at

sqrt(s)=7 TeV in LHCb', CONF-2011-017 comment before 6/4

2. Untagged angular analysis of Bd0->J/Psi K* and Bs->J/Psi phi decays',

CONF-2011-002 comment before 4/4

3. 'Measurement of the relative yields of the decay modes B0(s) ->

D+(s)pi- and B0 -> D+K- and determination of fs/fd for 7 TeV pp collisions' CONF-2011-013, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1336765, comment before 31/3

4. 'First observation of the decay Bs -> D0K*0 and measurement of the

ratio of branching fractions B(Bs -> D0K*0)/B(B0 -> D0rho0)', CONF-2011-008, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1336754 comment before 31/3

5. 'Observation of double J/Psi production in proton-proton collisions

at a centre-of-mass energy of sqrt(s)=7 TeV', CONF-2011-009 comment before 30/3

For 6-10 the dead lines for comments have passed. On 7-10 we gave comments, but did not comment on their answers. =======================================

---

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