[Bfys-physics] Fwd: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-010, Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$
Dear all,
I just discovered that Groningen (and hence Nikhef) is assigned the review of the draft below. As there will no bfys meeting between now and the deadline, I propose that I collect your comments and send them in.
Greetings,
Gerco
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fergus Wilson Fergus.Wilson@stfc.ac.uk Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-010, Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$ Date: 28 April 2017 at 13:25:13 GMT+2 To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" lhcb-general@cern.ch Cc: "LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers (LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers)" LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers@cern.ch Resent-From: c.onderwater@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments.
Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group!
Title : Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Louis_Henry, Christos_Hadjivasiliou Reviewers : Bernardo_Adeva (chair), Alberto_Lusiani EB reviewer : Alberto_Correa_dos_Reis EB readers : Mike_WIlliams, Patrick_Koppenburg Analysis note : ANA-2014-043 Deadline : 12-May-2017 e-group : lhcb-paper-2017-010-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2261508 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2KshhBFAnalysis
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Roma_Tor_Vergata__Roma__Italy Groningen__The_Netherlands Bucharest-Magurele__Romania Padova__Italy Maryland__United_States Tsinghua_University__Beijing__China
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, Fergus
Fergus Wilson, PPD, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK. Tel: +44-(0)1235 445259 Fax: +44-(0)1235 445672 CERN Tel: +41-22 76 77379 Skype: ferguswilson5259
- Gerco
Dr. C.J.G. Onderwater Van Swinderen Institute University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 NL-9747 AG Groningen the Netherlands Tel. +31(0)50-3633557 / 8774
Hi Gerco,
I have a small number of comments:
Title: Since this is not the first time results of a search to this deay are reported, and since there is still no convincing evidence of KsKK, wouldn't it make more sense to present this as an "Update of branching fraction measurements for Kshh", and report the KsKK as part of that?
Abstract: * an "indication is obtained" sounds pathetic, if the level of significance is not given. Why not write "An indication/hint at the level of 2.5 sigma is obtained"? * remove the sentence about the forthcoming Dalitz analysis. (There is little scientific knowledge in a promise.)
L9: rephrase "theoretical applications ... can be identified". We do measurements to build a theory, or to compare to theory, but not to apply them in a theory.
L24: add a reference to this statement (and consider to rephrase, because hard to read)
L88: triggers are not 'installed', but rather 'deployed'
L100: the "direction of the momentum vector" of the B is a kinematic quantity (it is eta/phi) and not a topological one. Probably you mean something else here, such as the angle between the vector between the PV and SV and the direction of the B, or the B IP, or IPCHI2.
L256: by extracting the weighted efficiency using sweighted events from data, you introduce a statistical correlation between the efficiency and the statistical error. This correlation can be quite substantial. (It theory, it could be 100%.) You don't report it, and it is unclear how you deal with it.
L392: It is unclear what you mean with the result below line 392. It cannot be both a single sided 90% upper limit (L390) and a (symmetric?) 90% confidence interval.
I hope this helps ... good luck:-)
Thanks, Wouter
On 01/05/17 16:33, Gerco Onderwater wrote:
Dear all,
I just discovered that Groningen (and hence Nikhef) is assigned the review of the draft below. As there will no bfys meeting between now and the deadline, I propose that I collect your comments and send them in.
Greetings,
Gerco
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Fergus Wilson <Fergus.Wilson@stfc.ac.uk mailto:Fergus.Wilson@stfc.ac.uk> *Subject: **First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-010, Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$* *Date: *28 April 2017 at 13:25:13 GMT+2 *To: *"lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.ch mailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch> *Cc: *"LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers (LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers)" <LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers@cern.ch mailto:LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers@cern.ch> *Resent-From: *<c.onderwater@cern.ch mailto:c.onderwater@cern.ch>
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments.
Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group!
Title : Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Louis_Henry, Christos_Hadjivasiliou Reviewers : Bernardo_Adeva (chair), Alberto_Lusiani EB reviewer : Alberto_Correa_dos_Reis EB readers : Mike_WIlliams, Patrick_Koppenburg Analysis note : ANA-2014-043 Deadline : 12-May-2017 e-group : lhcb-paper-2017-010-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2261508 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2KshhBFAnalysis
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Roma_Tor_Vergata__Roma__Italy Groningen__The_Netherlands Bucharest-Magurele__Romania Padova__Italy Maryland__United_States Tsinghua_University__Beijing__China
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, Fergus
Fergus Wilson, PPD, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK. Tel: +44-(0)1235 445259 Fax: +44-(0)1235 445672 CERN Tel: +41-22 76 77379 Skype: ferguswilson5259
- Gerco
Dr. C.J.G. Onderwater Van Swinderen Institute University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 NL-9747 AG Groningen the Netherlands Tel. +31(0)50-3633557 / 8774
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
LHCb-2017-010-tjeerd.com
Abstract: Remove "prior to the forthcoming Daliz plot analyses with Run I data sample" after "Updated branching ... are also presented," Normally, we only give an abstract on what is presented in the paper.
Line 39: Replace "They will benefit of the" by "We will benefit from". We will analyze the data, so we will benefit. "Benefit of" is used with a noun. "Benefit from" is used with a verb.
Line 174,175: "Events" and "candidates" are not well defined. Probably, they are "triggered events" and "B candidates". It is not made clear why the other candidates are not retained.
Figure 2: The caption is a repetition of that of figure 1. After its correction mention only the part that is different and refer to the caption of figure 1 for the rest.
Line 387: Replace "their former determinations" by "our former publication". Reverse "supersede" and "are in good agreement with".
Line 392: Replace "confidence belts" by confidence contours".
Line 309: Replace "will follow from and benefit of the" by "will benefit from the".
On Maandag 1 Mei 2017 16:33 CEST, Gerco Onderwater c.j.g.onderwater@rug.nl wrote:
Dear all,
I just discovered that Groningen (and hence Nikhef) is assigned the review of the draft below. As there will no bfys meeting between now and the deadline, I propose that I collect your comments and send them in.
Greetings,
Gerco
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fergus Wilson Fergus.Wilson@stfc.ac.uk Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-010, Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$ Date: 28 April 2017 at 13:25:13 GMT+2 To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" lhcb-general@cern.ch Cc: "LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers (LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers)" LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers@cern.ch Resent-From: c.onderwater@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments.
Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group!
Title : Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Louis_Henry, Christos_Hadjivasiliou Reviewers : Bernardo_Adeva (chair), Alberto_Lusiani EB reviewer : Alberto_Correa_dos_Reis EB readers : Mike_WIlliams, Patrick_Koppenburg Analysis note : ANA-2014-043 Deadline : 12-May-2017 e-group : lhcb-paper-2017-010-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2261508 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2KshhBFAnalysis
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Roma_Tor_Vergata__Roma__Italy Groningen__The_Netherlands Bucharest-Magurele__Romania Padova__Italy Maryland__United_States Tsinghua_University__Beijing__China
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, Fergus
Fergus Wilson, PPD, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK. Tel: +44-(0)1235 445259 Fax: +44-(0)1235 445672 CERN Tel: +41-22 76 77379 Skype: ferguswilson5259
- Gerco
Dr. C.J.G. Onderwater Van Swinderen Institute University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 NL-9747 AG Groningen the Netherlands Tel. +31(0)50-3633557 / 8774
Dear Tjeerd, all,
I have been de-assigned from being EB reader of this paper to solve agenda issues. I thus read the 1st circulation draft. Here are my comments.
On 08/05/17 15:34, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
LHCb-2017-010-tjeerd.com
Abstract: Remove "prior to the forthcoming Daliz plot analyses with Run I data sample" after "Updated branching ... are also presented," Normally, we only give an abstract on what is presented in the paper.
Line 39: Replace "They will benefit of the" by "We will benefit from". We will analyze the data, so we will benefit. "Benefit of" is used with a noun. "Benefit from" is used with a verb.
Line 174,175: "Events" and "candidates" are not well defined. Probably, they are "triggered events" and "B candidates". It is not made clear why the other candidates are not retained.
Indeed it would be good to add \B before candidates. Removing multiples is an accepted strategy to avoid double counting. But this has a final-state-dependent efficiency that does not necessarily cancels in ratios of BF. A systematic must be assigned following the recommendations of https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01128
Figure 2: The caption is a repetition of that of figure 1. After its correction mention only the part that is different and refer to the caption of figure 1 for the rest.
Line 387: Replace "their former determinations" by "our former publication". Reverse "supersede" and "are in good agreement with".
Line 392: Replace "confidence belts" by confidence contours".
Line 309: Replace "will follow from and benefit of the" by "will benefit from the".
Further comments:
Physics: - Your three Bs decay decay modes are not flavour-specific. You must thus say which lifetime was used to determine the efficiency and how it varies under the BsH and BsL assumptions. - L.339: How do you estimate? You run toys (good) or you just take the difference between central values using various binnings (bad)?
General: - are your caption font sizes those of the template? They look smaller.
L.4:move the footnote elsewhere or put it in the main text. L.9-10: sounds like "we have desperately looked for a justification". Rather write: "These decays can be used to determine several angles of the CKM unitarity triangles", or so. L.23: no period after phi L.30: extraction -> determination L.93: remove either "both" or "also" L.155: which muons? You need to define what \cquark{}\cquarkbar is. Here you probably mean one of the few charmonium resonances decaying occasionally to dimuons. Be explicit. L.162: ... but here ccbar is more general as you also allow for rare decays J/psi->pipi and KK. L.211: B+, B0 or Bs L.218: between 20 and 100%. Table 1-3 could go to the appendix. Fig.1-2: The pdfs are meaningless below 1 and probably wrong as well (tails are not well described). We suggest to cut the log plots at h->SetMinimum(0.5). There is too much space above the caption. Caption: candidate events -> candidates Table 4 is small. Use \frac{}{} to make the ratios shorter. \dots -> -- (for fs/fd) L.356: error -> uncertainty L.385: why the large spaces before stat and syst in the 3rd ratio? L.389: why refer to 2012 PDG? L.390: suddenly "we" [8 and 10" Inconsistent typeset of Belle [30] Use 2016 [41] what is \o{e}lax? While this web page is indeed public it does not provide understandable information for non-LHCb members. Why not cite the tracking DP paper?
Cheers,
Patrick
On Maandag 1 Mei 2017 16:33 CEST, Gerco Onderwater c.j.g.onderwater@rug.nl wrote:
Dear all,
I just discovered that Groningen (and hence Nikhef) is assigned the review of the draft below. As there will no bfys meeting between now and the deadline, I propose that I collect your comments and send them in.
Greetings,
Gerco
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fergus Wilson Fergus.Wilson@stfc.ac.uk Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-010, Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$ Date: 28 April 2017 at 13:25:13 GMT+2 To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" lhcb-general@cern.ch Cc: "LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers (LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers)" LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers@cern.ch Resent-From: c.onderwater@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments.
Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group!
Title : Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Louis_Henry, Christos_Hadjivasiliou Reviewers : Bernardo_Adeva (chair), Alberto_Lusiani EB reviewer : Alberto_Correa_dos_Reis EB readers : Mike_WIlliams, Patrick_Koppenburg Analysis note : ANA-2014-043 Deadline : 12-May-2017 e-group : lhcb-paper-2017-010-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2261508 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2KshhBFAnalysis
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Roma_Tor_Vergata__Roma__Italy Groningen__The_Netherlands Bucharest-Magurele__Romania Padova__Italy Maryland__United_States Tsinghua_University__Beijing__China
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, Fergus
Fergus Wilson, PPD, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK. Tel: +44-(0)1235 445259 Fax: +44-(0)1235 445672 CERN Tel: +41-22 76 77379 Skype: ferguswilson5259
- Gerco
Dr. C.J.G. Onderwater Van Swinderen Institute University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 NL-9747 AG Groningen the Netherlands Tel. +31(0)50-3633557 / 8774
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear all,
I submitted the collection of our comment. They can be found on
https://cds.cern.ch/record/2263831 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2263831
Greetings,
Gerco
On 12 May 2017, at 07:53, Patrick Koppenburg patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:
Dear Tjeerd, all,
I have been de-assigned from being EB reader of this paper to solve agenda issues. I thus read the 1st circulation draft. Here are my comments.
On 08/05/17 15:34, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
LHCb-2017-010-tjeerd.com
Abstract: Remove "prior to the forthcoming Daliz plot analyses with Run I data sample" after "Updated branching ... are also presented," Normally, we only give an abstract on what is presented in the paper.
Line 39: Replace "They will benefit of the" by "We will benefit from". We will analyze the data, so we will benefit. "Benefit of" is used with a noun. "Benefit from" is used with a verb.
Line 174,175: "Events" and "candidates" are not well defined. Probably, they are "triggered events" and "B candidates". It is not made clear why the other candidates are not retained.
Indeed it would be good to add \B before candidates. Removing multiples is an accepted strategy to avoid double counting. But this has a final-state-dependent efficiency that does not necessarily cancels in ratios of BF. A systematic must be assigned following the recommendations of https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01128 https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01128
Figure 2: The caption is a repetition of that of figure 1. After its correction mention only the part that is different and refer to the caption of figure 1 for the rest.
Line 387: Replace "their former determinations" by "our former publication". Reverse "supersede" and "are in good agreement with".
Line 392: Replace "confidence belts" by confidence contours".
Line 309: Replace "will follow from and benefit of the" by "will benefit from the".
Further comments:
Physics:
- Your three Bs decay decay modes are not flavour-specific. You must thus say which lifetime was used to determine the efficiency and how it varies under the BsH and BsL assumptions.
- L.339: How do you estimate? You run toys (good) or you just take the difference between central values using various binnings (bad)?
General:
- are your caption font sizes those of the template? They look smaller.
L.4:move the footnote elsewhere or put it in the main text. L.9-10: sounds like "we have desperately looked for a justification". Rather write: "These decays can be used to determine several angles of the CKM unitarity triangles", or so. L.23: no period after phi L.30: extraction -> determination L.93: remove either "both" or "also" L.155: which muons? You need to define what \cquark{}\cquarkbar is. Here you probably mean one of the few charmonium resonances decaying occasionally to dimuons. Be explicit. L.162: ... but here ccbar is more general as you also allow for rare decays J/psi->pipi and KK. L.211: B+, B0 or Bs L.218: between 20 and 100%. Table 1-3 could go to the appendix. Fig.1-2: The pdfs are meaningless below 1 and probably wrong as well (tails are not well described). We suggest to cut the log plots at h->SetMinimum(0.5). There is too much space above the caption. Caption: candidate events -> candidates Table 4 is small. Use \frac{}{} to make the ratios shorter. \dots -> -- (for fs/fd) L.356: error -> uncertainty L.385: why the large spaces before stat and syst in the 3rd ratio? L.389: why refer to 2012 PDG? L.390: suddenly "we" [8 and 10" Inconsistent typeset of Belle [30] Use 2016 [41] what is \o{e}lax? While this web page is indeed public it does not provide understandable information for non-LHCb members. Why not cite the tracking DP paper?
Cheers,
Patrick
On Maandag 1 Mei 2017 16:33 CEST, Gerco Onderwater c.j.g.onderwater@rug.nl wrote:
Dear all,
I just discovered that Groningen (and hence Nikhef) is assigned the review of the draft below. As there will no bfys meeting between now and the deadline, I propose that I collect your comments and send them in.
Greetings,
Gerco
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fergus Wilson Fergus.Wilson@stfc.ac.uk Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2017-010, Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$ Date: 28 April 2017 at 13:25:13 GMT+2 To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" lhcb-general@cern.ch Cc: "LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers (LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers)" LHCb-PAPER-2017-010-reviewers@cern.ch Resent-From: c.onderwater@cern.ch
Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments.
Team leaders, verify the author list and check for reading obligations of your group!
Title : Search for the decay $B^0_s \to K^0_S K^+ K^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Louis_Henry, Christos_Hadjivasiliou Reviewers : Bernardo_Adeva (chair), Alberto_Lusiani EB reviewer : Alberto_Correa_dos_Reis EB readers : Mike_WIlliams, Patrick_Koppenburg Analysis note : ANA-2014-043 Deadline : 12-May-2017 e-group : lhcb-paper-2017-010-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2261508 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2KshhBFAnalysis
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Roma_Tor_Vergata__Roma__Italy Groningen__The_Netherlands Bucharest-Magurele__Romania Padova__Italy Maryland__United_States Tsinghua_University__Beijing__China
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, Fergus
Fergus Wilson, PPD, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK. Tel: +44-(0)1235 445259 Fax: +44-(0)1235 445672 CERN Tel: +41-22 76 77379 Skype: ferguswilson5259
- Gerco
Dr. C.J.G. Onderwater Van Swinderen Institute University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 NL-9747 AG Groningen the Netherlands Tel. +31(0)50-3633557 / 8774
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
- Gerco
Dr. C.J.G. Onderwater Van Swinderen Institute University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 NL-9747 AG Groningen the Netherlands Tel. +31(0)50-3633557 / 8774
-
Gerco Onderwater -
Patrick Koppenburg -
Tjeerd Ketel -
Wouter Hulsbergen