Hi all,
I noted we also have the Bs->tau tau CONF (Kristof et al) assigned to the VU. I read it on the plane and have a plethora of comments. The deadline is tomorrow. Is anyone assigned to this note? Is anyone else reading it? Thanks for letting me know asap. If not I'll submit tomorrow.
Thanks
Patrick
//======================================================
Dear Kristof, Justine,
Congratulations for this impressive amount of work. I have a few comments on the CONF. I use the same level of pedantry as I would for a paper, as most of it can be recycled when we reach that stage.
Physics / General: - Values: From the Brazil plots I read 0.003 and 0.0013 at 95 CL. In the abstract and body you give a value that is 10 times smaller for the Bd. That cannot be as there is a factor 4 between alpha and alpha_s. What's up? - I have troubles with the concept of "all of nothing". In the abstract you write you see no signal and then set limits depending if "all events" come from Bs or Bd. We know already they do not. Rephrase here and in the body as "signal (fully) dominated by Bs decays", or similar. You should also help the reader understanding where this assumption comes from: just point to the factor 30 in SM BFs, to be multiplied by fd/fs. - That makes me think: The overall rates ratio in the SM is only 8 or so. Assuming SM-like flavour structure you could set a limit on both BFs. Probably for the paper... - L.41: I hope this is a typo and that you use D+>K-pi+pi+ and not the DCS mode you mention here. It is right in Eq. (3) (but call it K-pi+pi+, please). - L.98: I fail to understand what you mean with no NN requirement. And which of the two NN do you mean? - L.172: "are dependent" is too vague. Can you give the reader a feeling for how much it affects the limits? ... around there you should also compare the limit for the Bd with that of Babar.
Line-by-line: Title page: Isn't Kristof's name De Bruyn? Abstract: No signal is observed.
L.5: why strong? It's 3.0sigma L.13: Belle result of Ref. [9] (as you include other Belle results) L.16: B0->K*0mumu L.19: Use the cite package to get [12-14] L.30: add some space between = and 7 L.31: reconstructable -> ible L.32: discriminating against what? It certainly is against Z->tautau L.35: all the observed decays are assumed to originate from a Bs meson L.80: in Ref. [31]. Refer to the appendix here (unless that goes to additional material) L.93: \tau L.104: most of the signal decays fall L.105: remove one. What are these 10000 events? Data, simulation? It's not clear at all. L.106: global replace : number of signal events -> signal yield Eq.1: SR, CR, data and sim in roman (also in figure captions). L.118: \bquark-hadron L.122: Gaussian L.124: remove one. L.133: background-only Fig.2: y axis: fraction of decays (up), candidates (down). x axis: use similar size fonts for title and labels. You could put the two plots next to each other to save space and avoid plots being fara away from where mentioned. Fig.3: spell out relative. Why "subregion" wasn't it called region before? L.15); the dominant one -> dominant L.154: deviation of what? You mean the fitted signal yield I presume. L.155: error -> uncertainty L.159: how can you add an uncertainty in quadrature with the statistics of the simulated sample. Say what you mean exactly (and do not use the statistics jargon). L.163: signal yield L.166: the general comment applied also here. L.167: the one -> that L.176: \tau. remove thus. Fig.4: it is possible to show negative yields, we have done so in the past. Fig.6 and 11: add some space between label and title of x axis.
[6] collaboration [14] remove no. 7 [27] strange placement of comma [31] why period after Universit'e? [34] D. Mart{'\i}nez Santos [40] Strange format
The overall quality of the English is lower in App. A. Is that to be included in the note? It seems not to be referred to from anywhere.
L.285: lose (?) L.292: ... and the Z boson being produced at the PV. (it would not work at LEP) L.295: 4-vector conservation is implied. No need to mention all that. L.302: not clear what former and latter refer to. Eq.4: period missing L.310: only instance of we L.320: I believe that it is highly non-trivial, but rather than you showing off I'd prefer knowing how you do it. L.327: the ones -> those L.331: much more -> only L.333: remove ones.
Are App B and C additional material?
L.345 and 351: use boldmath L.348: $Z$ (?) Fig.7: Events -> Candidates L.352: The NN output distributions for simulated B->tautau decays in the ... Fig.~9. The general comment also applies here. Fig. 9: Fraction of decays Fig. 10: Candidates
Cheers,
Patrick
Dear Patrick, I missed that CONF-2016-0011, as I did not check conferences. It would be nice if you could post the comments. If there is a problem, let me know tomorrow. Best regards, Tjeerd
On Woensdag 14 September 2016 10:10 CEST, Patrick Koppenburg patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:
Hi all,
I noted we also have the Bs->tau tau CONF (Kristof et al) assigned to the VU. I read it on the plane and have a plethora of comments. The deadline is tomorrow. Is anyone assigned to this note? Is anyone else reading it? Thanks for letting me know asap. If not I'll submit tomorrow.
Thanks
Patrick
//======================================================
Dear Kristof, Justine,
Congratulations for this impressive amount of work. I have a few comments on the CONF. I use the same level of pedantry as I would for a paper, as most of it can be recycled when we reach that stage.
Physics / General:
- Values: From the Brazil plots I read 0.003 and 0.0013 at 95 CL. In
the abstract and body you give a value that is 10 times smaller for the Bd. That cannot be as there is a factor 4 between alpha and alpha_s. What's up?
- I have troubles with the concept of "all of nothing". In the
abstract you write you see no signal and then set limits depending if "all events" come from Bs or Bd. We know already they do not. Rephrase here and in the body as "signal (fully) dominated by Bs decays", or similar. You should also help the reader understanding where this assumption comes from: just point to the factor 30 in SM BFs, to be multiplied by fd/fs.
- That makes me think: The overall rates ratio in the SM is only 8 or
so. Assuming SM-like flavour structure you could set a limit on both BFs. Probably for the paper...
- L.41: I hope this is a typo and that you use D+>K-pi+pi+ and not the
DCS mode you mention here. It is right in Eq. (3) (but call it K-pi+pi+, please).
- L.98: I fail to understand what you mean with no NN requirement. And
which of the two NN do you mean?
- L.172: "are dependent" is too vague. Can you give the reader a
feeling for how much it affects the limits? ... around there you should also compare the limit for the Bd with that of Babar.
Line-by-line: Title page: Isn't Kristof's name De Bruyn? Abstract: No signal is observed.
L.5: why strong? It's 3.0sigma L.13: Belle result of Ref. [9] (as you include other Belle results) L.16: B0->K*0mumu L.19: Use the cite package to get [12-14] L.30: add some space between = and 7 L.31: reconstructable -> ible L.32: discriminating against what? It certainly is against Z->tautau L.35: all the observed decays are assumed to originate from a Bs meson L.80: in Ref. [31]. Refer to the appendix here (unless that goes to additional material) L.93: \tau L.104: most of the signal decays fall L.105: remove one. What are these 10000 events? Data, simulation? It's not clear at all. L.106: global replace : number of signal events -> signal yield Eq.1: SR, CR, data and sim in roman (also in figure captions). L.118: \bquark-hadron L.122: Gaussian L.124: remove one. L.133: background-only Fig.2: y axis: fraction of decays (up), candidates (down). x axis: use similar size fonts for title and labels. You could put the two plots next to each other to save space and avoid plots being fara away from where mentioned. Fig.3: spell out relative. Why "subregion" wasn't it called region before? L.15); the dominant one -> dominant L.154: deviation of what? You mean the fitted signal yield I presume. L.155: error -> uncertainty L.159: how can you add an uncertainty in quadrature with the statistics of the simulated sample. Say what you mean exactly (and do not use the statistics jargon). L.163: signal yield L.166: the general comment applied also here. L.167: the one -> that L.176: \tau. remove thus. Fig.4: it is possible to show negative yields, we have done so in the past. Fig.6 and 11: add some space between label and title of x axis.
[6] collaboration [14] remove no. 7 [27] strange placement of comma [31] why period after Universit'e? [34] D. Mart{'\i}nez Santos [40] Strange format
The overall quality of the English is lower in App. A. Is that to be included in the note? It seems not to be referred to from anywhere.
L.285: lose (?) L.292: ... and the Z boson being produced at the PV. (it would not work at LEP) L.295: 4-vector conservation is implied. No need to mention all that. L.302: not clear what former and latter refer to. Eq.4: period missing L.310: only instance of we L.320: I believe that it is highly non-trivial, but rather than you showing off I'd prefer knowing how you do it. L.327: the ones -> those L.331: much more -> only L.333: remove ones.
Are App B and C additional material?
L.345 and 351: use boldmath L.348: $Z$ (?) Fig.7: Events -> Candidates L.352: The NN output distributions for simulated B->tautau decays in the ... Fig.~9. The general comment also applies here. Fig. 9: Fraction of decays Fig. 10: Candidates
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Patrick Koppenburg -
Tjeerd Ketel