[Bfys-physics] Re : Fwd: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2016-030, Probing matter-antimatter asymmetries in $\Lambda^0_b$-baryon decays
Hi Patrick, Marcel,
The paper will be submitted to Nature Physics, not Nature. I understand Nature is more prestigious. How about the language? Can a Nature Physics paper be more technical than a Nature paper, or is one supposed to write at equal accessible level?
Cheers, Niels
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, patrick koppenburg wrote:
Hi Marcel,
As the deadline was friday, i have already sent the comments for niels, gerco and me. Please post yours on cds. It's certainly not too late.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Message original -------- Objet : Re: [Bfys-physics] Fwd: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2016-030, Probing matter-antimatter asymmetries in $\Lambda^0_b$-baryon decays De : Marcel Merk À : Patrick Koppenburg Cc : bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
Hi, here are my comments to the baryon asymmetry paper.First of all a great result that indeed deserves attention.
However, perhaps it is due to the fact that I have been on holidays, but I find the language in the paper far too technical for Nature. I think it is not written with a reader of Nature in mind. It is often small things that we take for granted in eg a PRL paper, but that should be done a bit more carefully for nature. eg: "the sum of two Crystal Ball functions[ref]" is not a format of language I would use in Nature.
clearly some illustations would help, eg Feynman diagrams and the event planes defining the angle Phi and the triple products.
As usual we describe the selection process, the precise definitions of observables and all details, but we could also chose to describe things one abstraction level higher and leave out some details that matter less for nature. And add some explanations of the ideas behind.
Examples:
- line 32 eq (3): it is not a priory clear why A_T + A_T-bar is
P-violating,while A_T - A_T-bar is CP violating. I find it very difficult to "see through" the triple product definitions and interpret that. Perhaps this can be explained a bit more.
- line 35: I also doubt that Nature readers appreciate the rich
resonant substructure of the three particle phase space.
- line 38: Same comment for the "nonvanishing difference in CP
invariant phase".
- line 45: what are "localised CPV effects". (Dalitz phase space is
behind)
- lines 119 - 125 are "dense" to read.
On the two binning schemes: Scheme A is mainly resonance contributions while scheme B exploits interferences. So what? What is the idea behind? p-value A = 4.9 x 10^-2 (2 sigma) p-value B = 7.1 x 10^-4 (3.4 sigma) --> Do we expect such a behaviour? Yes, becaus of interferences, but no text is spend on this.
Why is the product of the two p-values of the binning schemes the best thing to look at (3.3 sigma) and not just scheme B? And forget abut scheme A?
I realize that I would have a hard time "explaining" this people to outsiders...
cheers,
- Marcel
On 21 July 2016 at 03:35, Patrick Koppenburg Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch wrote: Hi all,
I was expecting no replies. Please read the paper and send me your comments. There's likely to be some noise about it, so you may get asked questions by your non-LHCb colleagues. The best way to be informed about (and influence) the content is to read it now. The next paper assigned to us will be that to be approved today https://indico.cern.ch/event/558480/ . It's tt, W+bb and W+cc cross-sections (to go to paper) but it will be followed by a CONF on Higgs->bb and Higgs->cc. I understand this will also be assigned to us. Cheers, Patrick On 07/18/2016 04:03 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: Dear all, There's an important paper for us: The first evidence of CP violation in baryons. It would also be our 2nd paper going to Nature Physics. Anyone volunteering to collect comments? Thanks Patrick -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2016-030, Probing matter-antimatter asymmetries in $\Lambda^0_b$-baryon decays Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:32:41 +0200 From: Michael Schmelling <Michael.Schmelling@mpi-hd.mpg.de> To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch>Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments:
Team leaders, please verify the author list and check for reading obligation s of your group!
Note that in view of ICHEP the circulation has been shortened from 2 weeks t o 10 working days.
Title : Probing matter-antimatter asymmetries in $\Lambda^0_b$-bar yon decays
Journal : Nature Physics Contact authors : Jinlin_Fu, Nicola_Neri, Maurizio_Martinelli, Andrea_Merli Reviewers : Steve_Playfer (chair), Mike_Sokoloff EB reviewer : Mat_Charles EB readers : Michael_Schmelling, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2014-077 Deadline : 29-Jul-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-030-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2199884 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/Lambd abTophhh
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands Edinburgh__United_Kingdom UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil Bucharest-Magurele__Romania Padova__Italy PNPI__Gatchina__Russia
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_ board/default.html
Best regards, Michael
-- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603
Hi all,
Nature Physics is somewhere in between Nature and PRL in terms of level. We were asked to do many changes in the Vub paper (also NP) to make it accessible, but not as many as for Bs->mumu. See Ulrik's comments on CDS. In any case Marcel's comments apply.
Cheers,
Patrick
On 01/08/2016 09:21, Niels Tuning wrote:
Hi Patrick, Marcel,
The paper will be submitted to Nature Physics, not Nature. I understand Nature is more prestigious. How about the language? Can a Nature Physics paper be more technical than a Nature paper, or is one supposed to write at equal accessible level?
Cheers, Niels
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, patrick koppenburg wrote:
Hi Marcel,
As the deadline was friday, i have already sent the comments for niels, gerco and me. Please post yours on cds. It's certainly not too late.
Cheers,
Patrick
-------- Message original -------- Objet : Re: [Bfys-physics] Fwd: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2016-030, Probing matter-antimatter asymmetries in $\Lambda^0_b$-baryon decays De : Marcel Merk À : Patrick Koppenburg Cc : bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
Hi, here are my comments to the baryon asymmetry paper.First of all a great result that indeed deserves attention.
However, perhaps it is due to the fact that I have been on holidays, but I find the language in the paper far too technical for Nature. I think it is not written with a reader of Nature in mind. It is often small things that we take for granted in eg a PRL paper, but that should be done a bit more carefully for nature. eg: "the sum of two Crystal Ball functions[ref]" is not a format of language I would use in Nature.
clearly some illustations would help, eg Feynman diagrams and the event planes defining the angle Phi and the triple products.
As usual we describe the selection process, the precise definitions of observables and all details, but we could also chose to describe things one abstraction level higher and leave out some details that matter less for nature. And add some explanations of the ideas behind.
Examples:
- line 32 eq (3): it is not a priory clear why A_T + A_T-bar is
P-violating,while A_T - A_T-bar is CP violating. I find it very difficult to "see through" the triple product definitions and interpret that. Perhaps this can be explained a bit more.
- line 35: I also doubt that Nature readers appreciate the rich
resonant substructure of the three particle phase space.
- line 38: Same comment for the "nonvanishing difference in CP
invariant phase".
- line 45: what are "localised CPV effects". (Dalitz phase space is
behind)
- lines 119 - 125 are "dense" to read.
On the two binning schemes: Scheme A is mainly resonance contributions while scheme B exploits interferences. So what? What is the idea behind? p-value A = 4.9 x 10^-2 (2 sigma) p-value B = 7.1 x 10^-4 (3.4 sigma) --> Do we expect such a behaviour? Yes, becaus of interferences, but no text is spend on this.
Why is the product of the two p-values of the binning schemes the best thing to look at (3.3 sigma) and not just scheme B? And forget abut scheme A?
I realize that I would have a hard time "explaining" this people to outsiders...
cheers,
- Marcel
On 21 July 2016 at 03:35, Patrick Koppenburg Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch wrote: Hi all,
I was expecting no replies. Please read the paper and send me your comments. There's likely to be some noise about it, so you may get asked questions by your non-LHCb colleagues. The best way to be informed about (and influence) the content is to read it now. The next paper assigned to us will be that to be approved today https://indico.cern.ch/event/558480/ . It's tt, W+bb and W+cc cross-sections (to go to paper) but it will be followed by a CONF on Higgs->bb and Higgs->cc. I understand this will also be assigned to us. Cheers, Patrick On 07/18/2016 04:03 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote: Dear all, There's an important paper for us: The first evidence of CP violation in baryons. It would also be our 2nd paper going to Nature Physics. Anyone volunteering to collect comments? Thanks Patrick -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2016-030, Probing matter-antimatter asymmetries in $\Lambda^0_b$-baryon decays Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:32:41 +0200 From: Michael Schmelling <Michael.Schmelling@mpi-hd.mpg.de> To: LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch>Dear Colleagues,
A draft paper is available for your comments:
Team leaders, please verify the author list and check for reading obligation s of your group!
Note that in view of ICHEP the circulation has been shortened from 2 weeks t o 10 working days.
Title : Probing matter-antimatter asymmetries in $\Lambda^0_b$-bar yon decays
Journal : Nature Physics Contact authors : Jinlin_Fu, Nicola_Neri, Maurizio_Martinelli, Andrea_Merli Reviewers : Steve_Playfer (chair), Mike_Sokoloff EB reviewer : Mat_Charles EB readers : Michael_Schmelling, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2014-077 Deadline : 29-Jul-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-030-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2199884 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/Lambd abTophhh
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands Edinburgh__United_Kingdom UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil Bucharest-Magurele__Romania Padova__Italy PNPI__Gatchina__Russia
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_
board/default.html
Best regards, Michael
-- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603
-
Niels Tuning -
patrick koppenburg