Dear all,

I just read the 2nd circulation and this is what I have:

Dear Marco, Vava,

Congratulations for making this difficult measurement understandable. I have a few more suggestions :

L.26 : I suggest "a doublet of B** states" to make clear which state you mean in L.30 L.44 : This higher mass resonance made me curious but this is only resolved in the conclusion. Can you give more details, mass, width,...? L.96-108 is a mixture of trigger and selection. It is not clear if the J/psiK(*) selection in line 98-99 is in the trigger, offline or both. L.114: "from the same PV" you have not described how you select the PV. Is there only one the B points to in all cases? L.120: "is likely to be" is pedantically correct. I think "is" better describes our understanding. L.131-4: Propose : The angle, theta, between the pion... frame, is required to satisfy cos theta > -0.5. L.143-144 and 154-155 seem to contradict each other. You mean in 144 that you combine decay modes but still split by charge. L.174: this "five (or six)" is confusing and only resolved in 196-201. Say here you have two different models with five or six RBW. L.218: why a long dash between data and MC? Or is that a minus? L.218-220: I find very unnatural that data-MC differences are modelled by a RBW. I presume it "just works". Can you add a word of justification. L.247: "do not exceed and are typically smaller" is a pleonasm. "typically much smaller"? L.267: I am not sure what you mean with a "relative efficiency" of decays. Reconstruction efficiency? L.271: I dislike the use of "error" but I will close my eyes here. L.288: it would help to refer back to the discussion in Section 4 here. L.308: move [1] after difference, else it looks like the latter is not taken from [1] L.323: "observed" is a loaded word and "clearly" does not make it weaker. "clearly seen"? L.323-342: I had to read that 3 times to understand. You first assess the significance of the first (BTW, which is the first?) and then of the second, including the first. Can you please say that to help the reader? Fig.6: add a horizontal line at y=0.

Cheers,

Patrick

On 19/01/15 12:23, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Dear all,

I propose the following response to upload later today.

Dear Marco, Thank you for your reply to our comments. We are certainly satisfied with your reaction.

Best regards, Tjeerd ================================================ Below we add only two remarks for clarification: Line 131: Actually "theta is the angle between the pion in the Bpi rest frame and B**momentum in the lab frame." Text updated accordingly.

We can only define an angle in one frame, lab or cms, not between two vectors in different frames. Therefore, I propose "theta is the angle of the pion in the Bpi c.m. system". The only obvious reference direction in that sytem is the opposite of the labsystem direction, sometimes called the direction of the Bpi cms movement. So this is then implicite the reference direction for the angle. Bpi, being two particle, has no rest frame, and B** is not a valid particle for the combinatorial background.

Line 149: At the same mass and higher than the narrow peaks surplus RS events can be due to additional resonances. Therefore, I supposed the "visible" evidence was only at lower mass than the narrow resonances.

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

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

...

Dear all,

We have a reaction on our comments. I will collect our reactions on Monday (before Veldhoven).

Best regards, Tjeerd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:39:10 +0100 From: CERN Document Server Submission Engine cds.support@cern.ch To: tjeerd@nikhef.nl Subject: LHCB-PAPER-2014-067-001-COMMENT-012 (a comment has been made on your comment)

Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2014-067-001-COMMENT-005) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2014-067-001 (entitled: 'Precise measurements of the properties of the $B_1(5721)^{0,+}$ and $B^\ast_2(5747)^{0,+}$ states and observation of structure at higher invariant mass in the $B^+\pi^-$ and $B^0\pi^+$ spectra') has itself been commented on by Marco Pappagallo [CERN - PH/ULB] (marco.pappagallo@cern.ch).

This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2014-067-001-COMMENT-012) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/1981500

Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team _______________________________________________ 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