Hi Antonio,

See below my comments on PAPER-2014-054.

General: - Are there really no requirements on L0? This is what is currently written in l.88. - The section on the selection is quite long. Try to shorten this significantly. - Why do you not pick one value for sigma? The final result should not depend on this choice. The outside reader (and even 99% of the LHCb readers) have no clue if the value you pick is good enough. We just have to trust you. It has no added value to give all four numbers. This only raises questions, like “should we add a systematic to any variations we see?”, and "is there a physics motivation for giving these four numbers separately?". - I am missing a discussion on the structure that is observed in Fig 5 bottom plot. Maybe add a sentence like “a small asymmetry is observed in the Dalitz plot in the region dominated by the rho+ (?) resonance”. - Table 1: How can it be that a simulated asymmetry in the rho+ resonance gives a different p-value compared to the same asymmetry in the rho- resonance. What is breaking the symmetry here?

Specific: l.4-6: Rewrite. The first two sentences do not match. Only tree diagram is SCS. You could say e.g. that the decay proceeds mainly via a SCS transition, and then in the next sentence say that there are possible penguin contributions as well (not repeat that there are tree). l.7-9: Mention the BSM argument at the end of this paragraph. Right now you mention this BSM twice in this paragraph. Sound like a broken record. l.9-11: Two times “may" in the same sentence. Does not give a strong impression. The first may you can easily remove, since interference by definition results in an asymmetry (if the phases are the same there is no interference). l.19: Put reference [2] on line 17 before the comma (where it belongs!) l.20: write all resonances in one go (i.e. remove the “as well as”). Like “Higher resonance rho, f0, f2(1270) and sigma(400) contribute…” l.24-28: Remove the names and put the sentence in passive form. l.32: I think Letter should be with capital L. Please check. Also in later occurrences. l.36: move “here”. “The unbinned technique applied here is used for …” l.37: “… is used to identify regions in …”. Remove “allows to” (should not be used in passive form; and not needed either) and remove the “to be identified” at the end of the sentence. l.45: “...accessible to both …” (not for) l.47-54: This is an analysis detail. Even though it is very interesting from the analysis point of view it really does not belong in the introduction. Mention this later. l.58-59: You should not give the result (that this measurement improves the precision) in the introduction. Remove this sentence. In any case it does not improve the precision of the Babar measurement!!!! l.60 (and later): "data set”. Two words. l.89: Start this sentence with “This means that tracks or photons…." l.91: “can be” -> “are” l.126: “all pi0 categories”. It is not clear what this means here. Could be solved by moving l.47-54 to here. l.153: “the D0 and pi_s^+ candidate" l.155: meson -> candidate. l.167: I think the standard LHCb notation is lowercase delta in delta_m. This would also solve any confusion with the definition on Delta x in line 241. l.179: “Figure 1 shows the Delta m distribution with the fit result overlaid ….” Eq.1: Add space before comma (in LaTeX: “\ ,”) l.212: It is not directly clear what are the normalisation factors. You could add “The normalisation factors in the denominator remove … " l.237: add “as the distance between the two points in the Dalitz…” l.252: remove “is” l.254: remove “nominal”. This is jargon, and more importantly it does not add any information. Suggest to replace with observed. Also in later occurrences (e.g. l.264 and l.290). Fig. 2+3: Why are these figures not in vector graphics? l.257: Add comma after reassigned. l.312: right-hand plot (add hyphen) l.330: “are plotted on a Dalitz plot” (two times plot) l.346: add “graphics processing units (GPUs)" l.347: remove “massive” Fig.3 caption: rewrite to “and (bottom) 1 degree in the phase of the rho+ resonance.” Fig.3 (and other figures): Remove symbol sigma in the z-axis, since it interferes with the other definition. l.378: replace preselection (jargon) with selection. l.399: remove “to CP violation”. Otherwise you talk about the comparable sensitivity to the BaBar results and better sensitivity to CP violation" l.411: “Studies have indicated good stability”. You just told us that the sigma needs to be large enough such that resolution effects do not play a role. So at this point I would like to be informed that this is exactly the case. I do not care about stability of whatever. And you should indicate what type of studies. l.464: "data sample” -> "calibration sample" l.466: add hyphen: “equal-sized” l.493-7: The fact that this is the first analysis that uses pi0 reconstructed in some new fashion should not enter in the conclusion. In the conclusion you should only talk about the physics, as interesting this pi0 reconstruction may be. l.501: Maybe you could add: “at a probability of only ….”. Since 2.6% does not seem very likely.

Cheers Jeroen

On 22 Aug, 2014, at 12:28 pm, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nlmailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:

Dear all,

We have a second paper for comments before 5 September. I propose to discuss both papers 052 and 054 at Friday morning 29 August. It would be nice to have volunteers to introduce these papers and to collect the comments.

Best regards, Tjeerd

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:24:42 +0000 From: Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.chmailto:rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch> To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.chmailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch> Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2014-054, A model-independent unbinned search for CP violation in $D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decays

Dear Colleagues,

A paper is available for your comments:

Title : A model-independent unbinned search for CP violation in $D^0\to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decays

Journal : PLB Contact authors : Jolanta Brodzicka, Marco Gersabeck Reviewers : Jussara Miranda (chair), Marcello Rotondo EB reviewer : Justine Serrano EB readers : Michael Schmelling, Wouter Hulsbergen Analysis note : ANA-2014-029 Deadline : 05-Sep-2014 e-group : lhcb-paper-2014-054-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1751374 Authors : LHCb +Kevin Maguire Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/D02hhpi0CPV2012

The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Frascati, Italy MPIK, Heidelberg, Germany Warsaw, Poland Genova, Italy 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_... rd/default.html

Regards, Rolf Oldeman

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