Dear all,
I will not be able to attend the bfys meeting on Friday. Here's my input for the paper, which I find generally nicely written.
General: We find your treatment of the resolution confusing. In L.98 you say you fix to the simulation (implying the simulation is OK, but not saying so). In line 122 you imply this should be scaled by a factor 1.1. Why is that not the default fit then?
Title: why is Xib upright here and nowhere else? L.2: The Xib stats... (bsd). It took some time to understand what you mean. As the sentence is written it sounds like bsu and bds are an isodoublet each. Suggest to rewrite as "isodoublets composed of a Xibz (bsu) and a Xibm (bsd) state. L.6-7: here it sounds like the state is excited in the system. Re-order. L.23-25: The mass difference _is_ the isospin splitting? L.25: isposin? L.70: nearest -> any (means the same but is clearer) L.107: uncertainty -> resolution L.109-111: N/sigma_N is always smaller than the significance and is not a simple metric for it. We suggest to remove this sentence and just add ", with significance in excess of 10sigma" to the previous one. L.124: how do you remove multiple candidates? Randomly? L.126: what do you do with the fit to the wrong sign sample? L.174: move "at LHCb" to the end and change to "in the LHCb acceptance", or more generally "at the LHC in the forward acceptance"
Supplementary material: why don't you add cos\theta_h plots?
Cheers,
Patrick
Hi Niels
Thanks for collecting all comments. Below are mine:
L7-10: Suggestion to smoothen this sentence: “…system, which occur in different spin-states for the sq diquark and spin-parity J^P for the baryon: one spin-antisymmetric state with J^P=1/2+, one spin-symmetric state with J^P=1/2+, and one spin-symmetric state with J^P=3/2+. L30-31: Remove brackets. No need to put this sentence in brackets. L60: you can remove “daughter” without loss of information. L68: you can remove “for the daughter particles” without loss of information. In any case, you need to remove the subsequent comma in L68. L72: Remove “about”. The cut is at exactly 3. L77: “… that the Xib candidate passes...”. Suggest to remove this sentence anyway, since it was said already in L51-52. L79-80. This sentence reads as if every pp collision contains 1.15 Xib candidates. The PRL reader cannot know that you mean in every selected event. Suggest to remove the “After all selection requirements,” and change “per event” into “per selected event”. L80: “Such multiple candidates…" L83: Projection is jargon. It is more clear to write: “The mass of the Xib0 of the Xib0-pis candidates…" L92: “This is obtained” (mass resolution is singular). L97: What is meant with the weighted average of the 3 Gaussian widths? Is the RMS or adding the Gaussian widths in quadrature a better figure? Fig.2: I see that you have added a color version in the supplementary material, which is good, but since nobody reads the paper versions anymore, it would be better to give a color version here already. L104: “line shape” (2 words). L107: you can remove “within the experimental uncertainty” without loss of information. That is obvious when you say that it is consistent. L109-111: Do you really need to say that both peaks are 10 sigma? Any reader can make the same calculation. L115: “the same parameters as in data”. I do not follow here. I thought that the resolution parameters were obtained from MC. Which parameters are you talking about? Make it clear in the text. L131: It is not clear what “The result” refers back to. Suggest to write: “The value m(D*)-m(D0)…" L132: keV is not in LHCb style. Use \kevcc. L135: Add the uncertainties in quadrature. In that case, it will be directly clear where the 0.50 uncertainty in the following result comes from. L149: Why don’t you show the cosTheta_h distributions? At least in the supplementary material, but better, in the main text. You can remove Fig. 1 to stay within PRL limits. L158: It is not clear what "A scaling factor of 0.1” means. To what is this applied? Suggest to rephrase.
Cheers Jeroen
On 20 Oct, 2014, at 10:16 am, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.chmailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Dear all,
I will not be able to attend the bfys meeting on Friday. Here's my input for the paper, which I find generally nicely written.
General: We find your treatment of the resolution confusing. In L.98 you say you fix to the simulation (implying the simulation is OK, but not saying so). In line 122 you imply this should be scaled by a factor 1.1. Why is that not the default fit then?
Title: why is Xib upright here and nowhere else? L.2: The Xib stats... (bsd). It took some time to understand what you mean. As the sentence is written it sounds like bsu and bds are an isodoublet each. Suggest to rewrite as "isodoublets composed of a Xibz (bsu) and a Xibm (bsd) state. L.6-7: here it sounds like the state is excited in the system. Re-order. L.23-25: The mass difference _is_ the isospin splitting? L.25: isposin? L.70: nearest -> any (means the same but is clearer) L.107: uncertainty -> resolution L.109-111: N/sigma_N is always smaller than the significance and is not a simple metric for it. We suggest to remove this sentence and just add ", with significance in excess of 10sigma" to the previous one. L.124: how do you remove multiple candidates? Randomly? L.126: what do you do with the fit to the wrong sign sample? L.174: move "at LHCb" to the end and change to "in the LHCb acceptance", or more generally "at the LHC in the forward acceptance"
Supplementary material: why don't you add cos\theta_h plots?
Cheers,
Patrick
-- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg LHCb Physics Coordinator Nikhef, Amsterdam & CERN http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nlmailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear all,
Please find the merged comments from Patrick, Jeroen and myself in attachment. I will submit it to CDS tomorrow.
Cheers, Niels
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Jeroen Van Tilburg wrote:
Hi Niels Thanks for collecting all comments. Below are mine:
L7-10: Suggestion to smoothen this sentence: “…system, which occur in different spin-states for the sq diquark and spin-parity J^P for the baryon: one spin-antisymmetric state with J^P=1/2+, one spin-symmetric state with J^P=1/2+, and one spin-symmetric state with J^P=3/2+. L30-31: Remove brackets. No need to put this sentence in brackets. L60: you can remove “daughter” without loss of information. L68: you can remove “for the daughter particles” without loss of information. In any case, you need to remove the subsequent comma in L68. L72: Remove “about”. The cut is at exactly 3. L77: “… that the Xib candidate passes...”. Suggest to remove this sentence anyway, since it was said already in L51-52. L79-80. This sentence reads as if every pp collision contains 1.15 Xib candidates. The PRL reader cannot know that you mean in every selected event. Suggest to remove the “After all selection requirements,” and change “per event” into “per selected event”. L80: “Such multiple candidates…" L83: Projection is jargon. It is more clear to write: “The mass of the Xib0 of the Xib0-pis candidates…" L92: “This is obtained” (mass resolution is singular). L97: What is meant with the weighted average of the 3 Gaussian widths? Is the RMS or adding the Gaussian widths in quadrature a better figure? Fig.2: I see that you have added a color version in the supplementary material, which is good, but since nobody reads the paper versions anymore, it would be better to give a color version here already. L104: “line shape” (2 words). L107: you can remove “within the experimental uncertainty” without loss of information. That is obvious when you say that it is consistent. L109-111: Do you really need to say that both peaks are 10 sigma? Any reader can make the same calculation. L115: “the same parameters as in data”. I do not follow here. I thought that the resolution parameters were obtained from MC. Which parameters are you talking about? Make it clear in the text. L131: It is not clear what “The result” refers back to. Suggest to write: “The value m(D*)-m(D0)…" L132: keV is not in LHCb style. Use \kevcc. L135: Add the uncertainties in quadrature. In that case, it will be directly clear where the 0.50 uncertainty in the following result comes from. L149: Why don’t you show the cosTheta_h distributions? At least in the supplementary material, but better, in the main text. You can remove Fig. 1 to stay within PRL limits. L158: It is not clear what "A scaling factor of 0.1” means. To what is this applied? Suggest to rephrase.
Cheers Jeroen
On 20 Oct, 2014, at 10:16 am, Patrick Koppenburg Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:
Dear all, I will not be able to attend the bfys meeting on Friday. Here's my input for the paper, which I find generally nicely written. General: We find your treatment of the resolution confusing. In L.98 you say you fix to the simulation (implying the simulation is OK, but not saying so). In line 122 you imply this should be scaled by a factor 1.1. Why is that not the default fit then? Title: why is Xib upright here and nowhere else? L.2: The Xib stats... (bsd). It took some time to understand what you mean. As the sentence is written it sounds like bsu and bds are an isodoublet each. Suggest to rewrite as "isodoublets composed of a Xibz (bsu) and a Xibm (bsd) state. L.6-7: here it sounds like the state is excited in the system. Re-order. L.23-25: The mass difference _is_ the isospin splitting? L.25: isposin? L.70: nearest -> any (means the same but is clearer) L.107: uncertainty -> resolution L.109-111: N/sigma_N is always smaller than the significance and is not a simple metric for it. We suggest to remove this sentence and just add ", with significance in excess of 10sigma" to the previous one. L.124: how do you remove multiple candidates? Randomly? L.126: what do you do with the fit to the wrong sign sample? L.174: move "at LHCb" to the end and change to "in the LHCb acceptance", or more generally "at the LHC in the forward acceptance" Supplementary material: why don't you add cos\theta_h plots? Cheers, Patrick -- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg LHCb Physics Coordinator Nikhef, Amsterdam & CERN http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Jeroen Van Tilburg -
Niels Tuning -
Patrick Koppenburg