[Bfys-physics] Measurement of the inelastic $pp$ cross-section at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV - CERN Document Server
Dear all,
A new paper is assigned to us. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2302458
Please read it and send comments. I am looking for a volunteer to collect these comments, please let me know.
I also remind you of the bfys meeting Friday, with Niels as speaker.
Cheers,
Patrick
Dear all,
I read the draft this morning. I paste below my comments.
I encourage people interested in statistics to have a look. The unfolding procedure is quite involved.
Cheers,
Patrick
#==================================================
Dear Alvaro, Michael,
Congratulations for the well written paper and the important "EMTF" result. It's always a pleasure to read papers written by former EB chairs.
Physics: - You say it's a Poisson distribution. Is it? Can you show it? - We are surprised there is no additional material. Some distributions would help showing this at conferences.
General: - In L.49 and 123 you use the concept of "run" without defining it. Different experiments have different definitions of what that is. Maybe worth adding that a run is a data set taken with stable conditions, and amounts to at most one hour.
Line-by-line: Abstract: We think it would be more natural to move the sentence about the statistical uncertainty after that explaining what the uncertainties are. L.1: This sentence is long. Consider splitting it. L.11: Add a paragraph break here. L.14: "in the lab" is jargon. Do you mean "in laboratory conditions", "in the laboratory frame" or both? L.18: remove "also". We suggest to add here that LHCb is unique in covering 2<eta<5 (true?). L.20: If you follow the suggestion above, there's no need to repeat the eta range. L.36: "trigger line" is jargon. What about "based on unbiased triggers"? L.37: "but accept those..." is a bit out of place. We think the sentence is clearer without it. L.43: B -> magnetic L.44: remove "about" L.71: dimensional L.74: allows to is not good English L.78: remove "then" L.88: This sentence is long. Consider splitting it. L.102: single -> only (?). detector-related L.129: we usually write Ref., but that may not be a rule (also 225) L.140-1: remove "systematic" twice. We know you discuss systematics here. L.144: extracting -> determining L.148-151: These two sentences are in the wrong order. First state there is a problem and then explain you assign a systematic uncertainty to cover it. L.155: Remove "Careful", all we do is careful. L.166: generator-level. Remove Monte-Carlo Table 1: We suggest to align source on the left. Add a row with the total. L.170: "efficiencies to be seen" sounds strange. Detection efficiencies? Table 2: add a space before (A) and (B) L.203: remove "one" Fig.2: not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics. L.225: error -> uncertainty L.228: space before 3 Fig.2: not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics. Fig.2: All mathematical terms should be in italics. The colour coding is a bit unnatural. Following the logo colours would help speakers in talks (who are likely to add logos on their slides). ATLAS is blue, CMS is light blue/orange, alice Red/Black, totem light red. Refs: most arxiv refs are missing.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 01/31/2018 10:33 AM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Dear all,
A new paper is assigned to us. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2302458
Please read it and send comments. I am looking for a volunteer to collect these comments, please let me know.
I also remind you of the bfys meeting Friday, with Niels as speaker.
Cheers,
Patrick
In fact, I just read the paper and I don't immediately (more then 10 minutes staring) understand the method that they use (using probability generating functions). Is this method for tot X-dection new for this paper? I believe that the previous paper [ref 15] uses a more conventional method. If it was checked that the more conventional method gives results that are (more or less) consistent, I'm happy to approve it. Phrased otherwise: how did they check that is not nonsense that comes out of their PDGs? - marcel
On 1 February 2018 at 13:45, Patrick Koppenburg patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:
Dear all,
I read the draft this morning. I paste below my comments.
I encourage people interested in statistics to have a look. The unfolding procedure is quite involved.
Cheers,
Patrick
#==================================================
Dear Alvaro, Michael,
Congratulations for the well written paper and the important "EMTF" result. It's always a pleasure to read papers written by former EB chairs.
Physics:
- You say it's a Poisson distribution. Is it? Can you show it?
- We are surprised there is no additional material. Some distributions
would help showing this at conferences.
General:
- In L.49 and 123 you use the concept of "run" without defining it.
Different experiments have different definitions of what that is. Maybe worth adding that a run is a data set taken with stable conditions, and amounts to at most one hour.
Line-by-line: Abstract: We think it would be more natural to move the sentence about the statistical uncertainty after that explaining what the uncertainties are. L.1: This sentence is long. Consider splitting it. L.11: Add a paragraph break here. L.14: "in the lab" is jargon. Do you mean "in laboratory conditions", "in the laboratory frame" or both? L.18: remove "also". We suggest to add here that LHCb is unique in covering 2<eta<5 (true?). L.20: If you follow the suggestion above, there's no need to repeat the eta range. L.36: "trigger line" is jargon. What about "based on unbiased triggers"? L.37: "but accept those..." is a bit out of place. We think the sentence is clearer without it. L.43: B -> magnetic L.44: remove "about" L.71: dimensional L.74: allows to is not good English L.78: remove "then" L.88: This sentence is long. Consider splitting it. L.102: single -> only (?). detector-related L.129: we usually write Ref., but that may not be a rule (also 225) L.140-1: remove "systematic" twice. We know you discuss systematics here. L.144: extracting -> determining L.148-151: These two sentences are in the wrong order. First state there is a problem and then explain you assign a systematic uncertainty to cover it. L.155: Remove "Careful", all we do is careful. L.166: generator-level. Remove Monte-Carlo Table 1: We suggest to align source on the left. Add a row with the total. L.170: "efficiencies to be seen" sounds strange. Detection efficiencies? Table 2: add a space before (A) and (B) L.203: remove "one" Fig.2: not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics. L.225: error -> uncertainty L.228: space before 3 Fig.2: not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics. Fig.2: All mathematical terms should be in italics. The colour coding is a bit unnatural. Following the logo colours would help speakers in talks (who are likely to add logos on their slides). ATLAS is blue, CMS is light blue/orange, alice Red/Black, totem light red. Refs: most arxiv refs are missing.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 01/31/2018 10:33 AM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Dear all,
A new paper is assigned to us. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2302458
Please read it and send comments. I am looking for a volunteer to collect these comments, please let me know.
I also remind you of the bfys meeting Friday, with Niels as speaker.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam https://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi,
Just a few comment from my side.
General: Is the luminosity corrected for the fact that the leading bunches suffer less from the dead time introduced by the RICH readout? L3: Long sentence. Would be natural to split here like “… relevant for particle physics at accelerators. It is also important for astroparticle physics [1], ….”. L10: remove space between square and s in the ln2s. L15: remove first occurrence of “cross-section”. L48-50: “The cross-calibration….has a precision of 0.2%.” The reader does not know what is cross-calibration (do you mean calibration?) and a calibration by itself does not have a precision (do you mean that the luminosity after calibration has 0.2% precision?). L63: The lifetime should be larger than 30 ps. It would help the reader what this means effectively. Which particle types are selected, how was this selected? L71: write out “three-dimensional” L88: "the probability distribution of reconstructed tracks” is not clear. Do you mean the number of reconstructed tracks, or do you mean the probability that a track is reconstructed? L105: “its value” it is not clear what its refers to (in particular it is a different it from the previous sentence). Change to “the value of \alpha” L109: add hyphen “higher-order” L119: add hyphen “leading-order” L173, Table 2: Write Pythia in same font as L55. L256: Write AMS in capitals.
Cheers Jeroen
On 1 Feb 2018, at 13:45, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.chmailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Dear all,
I read the draft this morning. I paste below my comments.
I encourage people interested in statistics to have a look. The unfolding procedure is quite involved.
Cheers,
Patrick
#==================================================
Dear Alvaro, Michael,
Congratulations for the well written paper and the important "EMTF" result. It's always a pleasure to read papers written by former EB chairs.
Physics: - You say it's a Poisson distribution. Is it? Can you show it? - We are surprised there is no additional material. Some distributions would help showing this at conferences.
General: - In L.49 and 123 you use the concept of "run" without defining it. Different experiments have different definitions of what that is. Maybe worth adding that a run is a data set taken with stable conditions, and amounts to at most one hour.
Line-by-line: Abstract: We think it would be more natural to move the sentence about the statistical uncertainty after that explaining what the uncertainties are. L.1: This sentence is long. Consider splitting it. L.11: Add a paragraph break here. L.14: "in the lab" is jargon. Do you mean "in laboratory conditions", "in the laboratory frame" or both? L.18: remove "also". We suggest to add here that LHCb is unique in covering 2<eta<5 (true?). L.20: If you follow the suggestion above, there's no need to repeat the eta range. L.36: "trigger line" is jargon. What about "based on unbiased triggers"? L.37: "but accept those..." is a bit out of place. We think the sentence is clearer without it. L.43: B -> magnetic L.44: remove "about" L.71: dimensional L.74: allows to is not good English L.78: remove "then" L.88: This sentence is long. Consider splitting it. L.102: single -> only (?). detector-related L.129: we usually write Ref., but that may not be a rule (also 225) L.140-1: remove "systematic" twice. We know you discuss systematics here. L.144: extracting -> determining L.148-151: These two sentences are in the wrong order. First state there is a problem and then explain you assign a systematic uncertainty to cover it. L.155: Remove "Careful", all we do is careful. L.166: generator-level. Remove Monte-Carlo Table 1: We suggest to align source on the left. Add a row with the total. L.170: "efficiencies to be seen" sounds strange. Detection efficiencies? Table 2: add a space before (A) and (B) L.203: remove "one" Fig.2: not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics. L.225: error -> uncertainty L.228: space before 3 Fig.2: not in LHCb style. all mathematical terms should be in italics. Fig.2: All mathematical terms should be in italics. The colour coding is a bit unnatural. Following the logo colours would help speakers in talks (who are likely to add logos on their slides). ATLAS is blue, CMS is light blue/orange, alice Red/Black, totem light red. Refs: most arxiv refs are missing.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 01/31/2018 10:33 AM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: Dear all,
A new paper is assigned to us. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2302458
Please read it and send comments. I am looking for a volunteer to collect these comments, please let me know.
I also remind you of the bfys meeting Friday, with Niels as speaker.
Cheers,
Patrick
-- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam https://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 -
Marcel Merk -
Patrick Koppenburg