Hi all,
Here's the Upsilon paper, with some interesting observations on differences between 2011 and 2012 muon triggers.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-045, Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:36:40 +0000 From: George Lafferty george.lafferty@manchester.ac.uk To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments:
Title : Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Giulia_Manca, Vanya_Belyaev Reviewers : Stephen_Farry (chair), Edwige_Tournefier EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Michael_Schmelling, David_Ward Analysis note : ANA-2014-017 Deadline : 19-Aug-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-045-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2040674 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/UpsilonWith3fb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Warwick__United_Kingdom Dortmund__Germany EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands Budker_and_Novosibirsk_State_University__Russia Edinburgh__United_Kingdom
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies to all comments made. Subsequent modifications to the draft will be 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, when final decisions will be made. As the last step, the collaboration will be given a final opportunity to comment during a “silent approval” period.
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_...
Best regards, George
Hi again,
Here are my comments. Any volunteer?
Cheers,
Patrick
==========================================
Dear Giulia, Vanya,
Here are a few comments on the nicely written Y paper
Physics: I am not fond of systematics being put for "fit range". They tend to double-count the statistical uncertainty. If you find something consistent, don't count is, if not investigate (that was the case for the exclusive Upsilon paper). Also, it's not clear which effect the use of sPlot is catching.
I hoped I would find all mass fits for all bins in the ANA but did not (please add them). Have you visually inspected them all? The last Pt bin at 4<y<4.5, which has low stats: how correlated are the uncertainties of the 2S and the 3S? Do you take it into account when doing the ratio?
L.4: partons, providing L.5 and 6: replace one of the "available" by a synomym L.7: Why the small space in NRQCD? Generally L.22: there's no question above. puzzle? L.26: and so? You should write here that we do not distinguish directly and feed-down bottomium. It seems this standard paragraph is missing. L.28: 2.76, 7 and 8 TeV L.33: you use data, not 1/pb. -> using data corresponding ... L.36: when going -> between L.88 to 108: It's not always clear when you man "any" Upsilon or an unspecified Y(nS). For instance N(Y->mumu) in eq 1 means the same as N(Y(iS)->mumu) in eq.2. Then you say N(Y->mumu) in eq 2 has the same meaning as in 1, but there is no such quantity. I suggest you always spell out nS. Eq.1: It's a neat idea to use the square as index (is that what you do?), but this character is often used by applications to mean "I don't find this special character", so I would avoid it. My first impression was that miss some font. I suggest \text{bin} instead. L.105: remove event Fig.1 caption and many more: you have some non standard space after TeV. Put a normal space. 4.0 -> 3.5 L.119-126: All sentences are built as "spam is good while the parrot is dead". Please rephrase some. L.141-4: was -> is. were -> are (2x) L.152-3: I don't understand how you do this. L.155: high statistics is jargon L.156: imperfection L.172: which effect? There's no effect being described here. You mean differences between data and simulation? L.185: how correlated are the 0.65% precisions at 7 and 8 TeV? Do they cancel in ratios? L.200-202: In the J/psi paper they give a table to show the effect. Is that an option here? L.217: CSM is undefined (CS is) Fig.2: we usually put labels at the right. Why don't you use the Lafferty prescription here? Table: you seem to stick to the rule of how many digits should be shown, but in some cases that makes little sense. Like 0.357\pm0.031 could be aligned with the other ones. L.248: This sentence needs a rewrite. A rise wrt what? L.258: what is "standard quarkonium"? and hybrid?
Acknowledgements: I suggest to start with thanking the people who provided predictions (is this being what's in literature?) then _also_ thank those with whom you had discussions without repeating anyone.
Fig.6: here too, there's strange spacing after (top) and (middle). Why don't the vertical axis labels align at the top?
Ref. [17] is there anything in the thesis you need that is not in [16]? Ref. [47] and [49]: is there anything you need that is not in [48]?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 06/08/15 09:14, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the Upsilon paper, with some interesting observations on differences between 2011 and 2012 muon triggers.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-045, Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:36:40 +0000 From: George Lafferty george.lafferty@manchester.ac.uk To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments:
Title : Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Giulia_Manca, Vanya_Belyaev Reviewers : Stephen_Farry (chair), Edwige_Tournefier EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Michael_Schmelling, David_Ward Analysis note : ANA-2014-017 Deadline : 19-Aug-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-045-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2040674 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/UpsilonWith3fb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Warwick__United_Kingdom Dortmund__Germany EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands Budker_and_Novosibirsk_State_University__Russia Edinburgh__United_Kingdom
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies to all comments made. Subsequent modifications to the draft will be 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, when final decisions will be made. As the last step, the collaboration will be given a final opportunity to comment during a “silent approval” period.
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_...
Best regards, George
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
seems I'm the only one not on holidays. I just submitted the comments
On 10/08/15 18:37, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi again,
Here are my comments. Any volunteer?
Cheers,
Patrick
==========================================
Dear Giulia, Vanya,
Here are a few comments on the nicely written Y paper
Physics: I am not fond of systematics being put for "fit range". They tend to double-count the statistical uncertainty. If you find something consistent, don't count is, if not investigate (that was the case for the exclusive Upsilon paper). Also, it's not clear which effect the use of sPlot is catching.
I hoped I would find all mass fits for all bins in the ANA but did not (please add them). Have you visually inspected them all? The last Pt bin at 4<y<4.5, which has low stats: how correlated are the uncertainties of the 2S and the 3S? Do you take it into account when doing the ratio?
L.4: partons, providing L.5 and 6: replace one of the "available" by a synomym L.7: Why the small space in NRQCD? Generally L.22: there's no question above. puzzle? L.26: and so? You should write here that we do not distinguish directly and feed-down bottomium. It seems this standard paragraph is missing. L.28: 2.76, 7 and 8 TeV L.33: you use data, not 1/pb. -> using data corresponding ... L.36: when going -> between L.88 to 108: It's not always clear when you man "any" Upsilon or an unspecified Y(nS). For instance N(Y->mumu) in eq 1 means the same as N(Y(iS)->mumu) in eq.2. Then you say N(Y->mumu) in eq 2 has the same meaning as in 1, but there is no such quantity. I suggest you always spell out nS. Eq.1: It's a neat idea to use the square as index (is that what you do?), but this character is often used by applications to mean "I don't find this special character", so I would avoid it. My first impression was that miss some font. I suggest \text{bin} instead. L.105: remove event Fig.1 caption and many more: you have some non standard space after TeV. Put a normal space. 4.0 -> 3.5 L.119-126: All sentences are built as "spam is good while the parrot is dead". Please rephrase some. L.141-4: was -> is. were -> are (2x) L.152-3: I don't understand how you do this. L.155: high statistics is jargon L.156: imperfection L.172: which effect? There's no effect being described here. You mean differences between data and simulation? L.185: how correlated are the 0.65% precisions at 7 and 8 TeV? Do they cancel in ratios? L.200-202: In the J/psi paper they give a table to show the effect. Is that an option here? L.217: CSM is undefined (CS is) Fig.2: we usually put labels at the right. Why don't you use the Lafferty prescription here? Table: you seem to stick to the rule of how many digits should be shown, but in some cases that makes little sense. Like 0.357\pm0.031 could be aligned with the other ones. L.248: This sentence needs a rewrite. A rise wrt what? L.258: what is "standard quarkonium"? and hybrid?
Acknowledgements: I suggest to start with thanking the people who provided predictions (is this being what's in literature?) then _also_ thank those with whom you had discussions without repeating anyone.
Fig.6: here too, there's strange spacing after (top) and (middle). Why don't the vertical axis labels align at the top?
Ref. [17] is there anything in the thesis you need that is not in [16]? Ref. [47] and [49]: is there anything you need that is not in [48]?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 06/08/15 09:14, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the Upsilon paper, with some interesting observations on differences between 2011 and 2012 muon triggers.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-045, Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:36:40 +0000 From: George Lafferty george.lafferty@manchester.ac.uk To: LHCb General mailing list lhcb-general@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments:
Title : Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Giulia_Manca, Vanya_Belyaev Reviewers : Stephen_Farry (chair), Edwige_Tournefier EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Michael_Schmelling, David_Ward Analysis note : ANA-2014-017 Deadline : 19-Aug-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-045-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2040674 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/UpsilonWith3fb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Warwick__United_Kingdom Dortmund__Germany EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands Budker_and_Novosibirsk_State_University__Russia Edinburgh__United_Kingdom
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies to all comments made. Subsequent modifications to the draft will be 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, when final decisions will be made. As the last step, the collaboration will be given a final opportunity to comment during a “silent approval” period.
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_...
Best regards, George
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg LHCb Physics Coordinator Nikhef, Amsterdam & CERN http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Dear Patrick,
Thank you for giving your comments, also on behalf of the Nikhef group, in time before the deadline. I cannot read their response, possibly due to my HTML interpreter. Many of us were on holidays indeed.
Best regards, Tjeerd
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
seems I'm the only one not on holidays. I just submitted the comments
On 10/08/15 18:37, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: Hi again,
Here are my comments. Any volunteer? Cheers, Patrick ========================================== Dear Giulia, Vanya, Here are a few comments on the nicely written Y paper Physics: I am not fond of systematics being put for "fit range". They tend to double-count the statistical uncertainty. If you find something consistent, don't count is, if not investigate (that was the case for the exclusive Upsilon paper). Also, it's not clear which effect the use of sPlot is catching. I hoped I would find all mass fits for all bins in the ANA but did not (please add them). Have you visually inspected them all? The last Pt bin at 4<y<4.5, which has low stats: how correlated are the uncertainties of the 2S and the 3S? Do you take it into account when doing the ratio? L.4: partons, providing L.5 and 6: replace one of the "available" by a synomym L.7: Why the small space in NRQCD? Generally L.22: there's no question above. puzzle? L.26: and so? You should write here that we do not distinguish directly and feed-down bottomium. It seems this standard paragraph is missing. L.28: 2.76, 7 and 8 TeV L.33: you use data, not 1/pb. -> using data corresponding ... L.36: when going -> between L.88 to 108: It's not always clear when you man "any" Upsilon or an unspecified Y(nS). For instance N(Y->mumu) in eq 1 means the same as N(Y(iS)->mumu) in eq.2. Then you say N(Y->mumu) in eq 2 has the same meaning as in 1, but there is no such quantity. I suggest you always spell out nS. Eq.1: It's a neat idea to use the square as index (is that what you do?), but this character is often used by applications to mean "I don't find this special character", so I would avoid it. My first impression was that miss some font. I suggest \text{bin} instead. L.105: remove event Fig.1 caption and many more: you have some non standard space after TeV. Put a normal space. 4.0 -> 3.5 L.119-126: All sentences are built as "spam is good while the parrot is dead". Please rephrase some. L.141-4: was -> is. were -> are (2x) L.152-3: I don't understand how you do this. L.155: high statistics is jargon L.156: imperfection L.172: which effect? There's no effect being described here. You mean differences between data and simulation? L.185: how correlated are the 0.65% precisions at 7 and 8 TeV? Do they cancel in ratios? L.200-202: In the J/psi paper they give a table to show the effect. Is that an option here? L.217: CSM is undefined (CS is) Fig.2: we usually put labels at the right. Why don't you use the Lafferty prescription here? Table: you seem to stick to the rule of how many digits should be shown, but in some cases that makes little sense. Like 0.357\pm0.031 could be aligned with the other ones. L.248: This sentence needs a rewrite. A rise wrt what? L.258: what is "standard quarkonium"? and hybrid? Acknowledgements: I suggest to start with thanking the people who provided predictions (is this being what's in literature?) then _also_ thank those with whom you had discussions without repeating anyone. Fig.6: here too, there's strange spacing after (top) and (middle). Why don't the vertical axis labels align at the top? Ref. [17] is there anything in the thesis you need that is not in [16]? Ref. [47] and [49]: is there anything you need that is not in [48]? Cheers, Patrick On 06/08/15 09:14, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: Hi all, Here's the Upsilon paper, with some interesting observations on differences between 2011 and 2012 muon triggers. Cheers, Patrick -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-045, Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:36:40 +0000 From: George Lafferty <george.lafferty@manchester.ac.uk> To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch> Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments:
Title : Studies of forward production of $\Upsilon$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Giulia_Manca, Vanya_Belyaev Reviewers : Stephen_Farry (chair), Edwige_Tournefier EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Michael_Schmelling, David_Ward Analysis note : ANA-2014-017 Deadline : 19-Aug-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-045-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2040674 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/UpsilonWith3fb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Warwick__United_Kingdom Dortmund__Germany EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands Budker_and_Novosibirsk_State_University__Russia Edinburgh__United_Kingdom
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies to all comments made. Subsequent modifications to the draft will be 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, when final decisions will be made. As the last step, the collaboration will be given a final opportunity to comment during a “silent approval” period.
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_...
Best regards, George
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics