[Bfys-physics] Paper for Nikhef PAPER-2015-003, Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV
Dear all,
We have a paper on Z production to comment by our group. The deadline is Tuesday 10 February. Best date to discuss is at Friday 5 February, although a few of us (Marcel, Wputer, Eddy and me) will be absent.
Does somebody volunteer to explain the paper and collect comments?
Best regards, Tjeerd
Hi,
I give my comments to the paper below.
Cheers Jeroen
General: - Use the LHCb symbols everywhere e.g. for TeV (\tev) - There is no plot showing the Z mass. It would be instructive to show such this plot. - At several places (abstract, L241, L481) you write that you know the luminosity approximately. This is strange as we know the luminosity to an amazing accuracy of 1%. Please remove the word “approximately”. In addition, please quote the lumi with the same number of digits everywhere (preferably 2.0 instead of just 2).
Abstract: - “The acceptance of the measurement … in the range 60-120 GeV”. This sentence does not read well and has to be rewritten. Some suggestions. Write "The acceptance of the detector” or “For this measurement the acceptance is defined …”. Write “defined to be in the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 4.5 and for transverse momenta above 20 GeV for the electrons ..." - “arising FROM the luminosity” - “which is given as the third uncertainty”. The antecedent of which is not clear. As it is now, the antecedent is “luminosity effects”. Suggestion “… , the second is systematic (excluding luminosity effects) and the third arises from the uncertainty on the luminosity.” - Remove “also” in “Differential cross-sections are also presented…”. Or move “also” to the start of the sentence.
Main text: L216: “whose good acceptance”. Good sounds strange here. Not clear what you mean. Maybe use “effective” instead. L216: “extends UP to” L218: Remove “particularly" L226-7: “momentum-analysing magnet” sounds a bit strange. The magnet is not analysing. In the second part of the sentence you say that the energy of the electrons is frequently degraded, which sounds weird. Suggest: “..before they reach the magnet, and their momentum measurement is therefore degraded by …” L227: Start new sentence at which and replace “all” with completely: “This effect cannot be completely recovered..." L229: “In consequence the eletron direction..”. Suggest “As a consequence the initial electron direction…” L230: “their measured energies” -> “their measured momenta” (we measure momenta; not energies) L230: Add comma after “Therefore” L237: Remove “respectively”. It is not needed, since there is no ambiguity possible. L244: remove “and” L245: replace first “and” with “, from”. And write “and FROM AN improved modelling…” Footnote 1: "A decay Z->ee with the formation of ee through a Z” is not correct. The direct decay does not go through another Z. Suggest: “possibly through a virtual photon, including the effect of the interference with the direct decay." Footnote 2: keep on same page. L249-252: This paragraph does not work. Sect 2 and 6 are missing. It now reads as if Sect 3 starts with detector and triggers. Suggest: “Sect. 2 briefly describes …” And end with “by a brief summary in Sect. 6.” Also note that Sect. 2 is called “Detector and simulation”. So simulation should be mentioned in L249 as well. L254-5: Remove “covering the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 5”, since you have already discussed the effective range previously. This sentence only confuses the reader (you do no want to explain why it is defined differently here) L273: remove “charged-particle”. This is implied by track. L278: Remove “also” L296-8: The clause “where E_ECAL, … respectively” can be removed without any loss of information. The abbreviations were already introduced. L301+303: Add commas or spaces in the yields. E.g. 4,595 L302: Typo “aree” -> “are” Eq.1: Add comma at the end of the equation. Eq.2: No need to have periods at the end of Kin and Trig L327-8: Not clear what is meant with “electron and positron yield reconstructed tracks”. Not needed either. Suggest: “both tracks satisfy the selection requirements”. L330: Replace “using” with “with” to avoid to write use twice in the sentence. L338: Remove quotation marks around true. You do not have them in L326 either. L340: Why not write Pythia 8.1 as in Section 2? L354: “apart from the contribution from the leptons”: why not write electrons? Suggest to be more clear: “… after correcting for the additional SPD hits of the electrons”. Fig. 1: If you define the symbol epsilon in the caption, you need to put it in the y-axis title as well. L357: electrons. L375: Remove quotes around photon. Instead you could write photon candidate. L397: Remove quotes around probe. L401: “independent of y_Z and phi*”. Assume that you mean the same as on L385, i.e. that it is fully correlated between bins. If so, use the same wording here. L408: “as one of the systematic” -> “as a systematic” L415: Remove quotes around probe. L416: It is not the cut that fails, but the candidate fails the cut. Suggest to write: “that it fails the cut on the HCAL energy” L431: “statistical error” should be “systematic error”. L454: “included some LHC data” sounds as if they purposely neglected available LHC data. Suggest to delete “some”. L460: “too” -> “as well” L470+6: Write Pythia 8.1 as in Sect.2. L482: Same remark as for abstract. Fig. 4: Add unit to the left-hand y-axis [pb]. In the caption, last-but-one sentence, remove the first occurrence of “are shown”. Add hyphen in “leading-log”. Fig. 5: In the y-axis title, right-hand plot add “ / data": In the caption add hyphen in “leading-log”. Ref 17: write collaboration with lowercase.
On 29 Jan, 2015, at 16:15 pm, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nlmailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Dear all,
We have a paper on Z production to comment by our group. The deadline is Tuesday 10 February. Best date to discuss is at Friday 5 February, although a few of us (Marcel, Wputer, Eddy and me) will be absent.
Does somebody volunteer to explain the paper and collect comments?
Best regards, Tjeerd
From: Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.chmailto:rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch> To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.chmailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch> Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-003, Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV Date: 27 January, 2015 21:35:01 CET
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : David Ward Reviewers : Marc Grabalosa (chair), Silvia Borghi EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Nicola Serra Analysis note : ANA-2014-086 Deadline : 10-Feb-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-003-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1983212 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Zee8TeVtwiki
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: STFC (RAL), United Kingdom IHEP, Protvino, Russia ITEP, Moscow, Russia LAL, Orsay, France EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are 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 where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
Regards, Rolf Oldeman
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nlmailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi all,
I didn’t have much time to read the paper very carefully, but nevertheless have a few comments. Unfortunately I will be teaching tomorrow during the meeting.
- L236 : I assume the azimuthal angles are in the detector frame and that Delta-phi is thus also measured in the detector frame? - L260 : “provides a measurement of THE momentum" - L272 : “with a segment of A charged particle track” - L278 : “… to evaluate SOME efficiencies.” -> sloppy! unclear if all relevant ones have been simulated, or all necessary ones, etc. “… to evaluate relevant efficiencies that couldn’t be determined by other means." - L312 : “The choice of binning is informed ….” -> “The choice of binning is DETERMINED by ….” L326-L332 : are correlations among bins taken into account? Later on it seems so … L340 : “… and an additional correction is no longer NEEDED.” -> or you would double count. L345 : “…; this part of the efficiency should be modelled reliably.” -> I’d assume that holds for all parts. Remove entire sentence, or write what is really meant (e.g. needs to be modelled with a better than average precision, or something) L347 : “the calorimeter energy requirements” -> the calorimeter acceptance” L413 : “such backgrounds are intended to be …” -> such background are EXPECTED to be …” L436 : “The UNCERTAINTY IN THE bins of these ….” L449 : it seems like most (?) systematic errors are added linearly. From fig. 3 it seems that the results is systematics limited. Is the systematic error evaluation not too cautious? Pg. 21 : I’m somewhat surprised that the correlation matrix has only positive values. If there is some smearing effect going on, at least some negative values should appear here and there. Is there a single systematic error driving the correlation (e.g. luminosity)?
Greetings,
Gerco
On 05 Feb 2015, at 14:06, Jeroen Van Tilburg jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch wrote:
Hi,
I give my comments to the paper below.
Cheers Jeroen
General:
- Use the LHCb symbols everywhere e.g. for TeV (\tev)
- There is no plot showing the Z mass. It would be instructive to show such this plot.
- At several places (abstract, L241, L481) you write that you know the luminosity approximately. This is strange as we know the luminosity to an amazing accuracy of 1%. Please remove the word “approximately”. In addition, please quote the lumi with the same number of digits everywhere (preferably 2.0 instead of just 2).
Abstract:
- “The acceptance of the measurement … in the range 60-120 GeV”. This sentence does not read well and has to be rewritten. Some suggestions. Write "The acceptance of the detector” or “For this measurement the acceptance is defined …”. Write “defined to be in the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 4.5 and for transverse momenta above 20 GeV for the electrons ..."
- “arising FROM the luminosity”
- “which is given as the third uncertainty”. The antecedent of which is not clear. As it is now, the antecedent is “luminosity effects”. Suggestion “… , the second is systematic (excluding luminosity effects) and the third arises from the uncertainty on the luminosity.”
- Remove “also” in “Differential cross-sections are also presented…”. Or move “also” to the start of the sentence.
Main text: L216: “whose good acceptance”. Good sounds strange here. Not clear what you mean. Maybe use “effective” instead. L216: “extends UP to” L218: Remove “particularly" L226-7: “momentum-analysing magnet” sounds a bit strange. The magnet is not analysing. In the second part of the sentence you say that the energy of the electrons is frequently degraded, which sounds weird. Suggest: “..before they reach the magnet, and their momentum measurement is therefore degraded by …” L227: Start new sentence at which and replace “all” with completely: “This effect cannot be completely recovered..." L229: “In consequence the eletron direction..”. Suggest “As a consequence the initial electron direction…” L230: “their measured energies” -> “their measured momenta” (we measure momenta; not energies) L230: Add comma after “Therefore” L237: Remove “respectively”. It is not needed, since there is no ambiguity possible. L244: remove “and” L245: replace first “and” with “, from”. And write “and FROM AN improved modelling…” Footnote 1: "A decay Z->ee with the formation of ee through a Z” is not correct. The direct decay does not go through another Z. Suggest: “possibly through a virtual photon, including the effect of the interference with the direct decay." Footnote 2: keep on same page. L249-252: This paragraph does not work. Sect 2 and 6 are missing. It now reads as if Sect 3 starts with detector and triggers. Suggest: “Sect. 2 briefly describes …” And end with “by a brief summary in Sect. 6.” Also note that Sect. 2 is called “Detector and simulation”. So simulation should be mentioned in L249 as well. L254-5: Remove “covering the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 5”, since you have already discussed the effective range previously. This sentence only confuses the reader (you do no want to explain why it is defined differently here) L273: remove “charged-particle”. This is implied by track. L278: Remove “also” L296-8: The clause “where E_ECAL, … respectively” can be removed without any loss of information. The abbreviations were already introduced. L301+303: Add commas or spaces in the yields. E.g. 4,595 L302: Typo “aree” -> “are” Eq.1: Add comma at the end of the equation. Eq.2: No need to have periods at the end of Kin and Trig L327-8: Not clear what is meant with “electron and positron yield reconstructed tracks”. Not needed either. Suggest: “both tracks satisfy the selection requirements”. L330: Replace “using” with “with” to avoid to write use twice in the sentence. L338: Remove quotation marks around true. You do not have them in L326 either. L340: Why not write Pythia 8.1 as in Section 2? L354: “apart from the contribution from the leptons”: why not write electrons? Suggest to be more clear: “… after correcting for the additional SPD hits of the electrons”. Fig. 1: If you define the symbol epsilon in the caption, you need to put it in the y-axis title as well. L357: electrons. L375: Remove quotes around photon. Instead you could write photon candidate. L397: Remove quotes around probe. L401: “independent of y_Z and phi*”. Assume that you mean the same as on L385, i.e. that it is fully correlated between bins. If so, use the same wording here. L408: “as one of the systematic” -> “as a systematic” L415: Remove quotes around probe. L416: It is not the cut that fails, but the candidate fails the cut. Suggest to write: “that it fails the cut on the HCAL energy” L431: “statistical error” should be “systematic error”. L454: “included some LHC data” sounds as if they purposely neglected available LHC data. Suggest to delete “some”. L460: “too” -> “as well” L470+6: Write Pythia 8.1 as in Sect.2. L482: Same remark as for abstract. Fig. 4: Add unit to the left-hand y-axis [pb]. In the caption, last-but-one sentence, remove the first occurrence of “are shown”. Add hyphen in “leading-log”. Fig. 5: In the y-axis title, right-hand plot add “ / data": In the caption add hyphen in “leading-log”. Ref 17: write collaboration with lowercase.
On 29 Jan, 2015, at 16:15 pm, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl mailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Dear all,
We have a paper on Z production to comment by our group. The deadline is Tuesday 10 February. Best date to discuss is at Friday 5 February, although a few of us (Marcel, Wputer, Eddy and me) will be absent.
Does somebody volunteer to explain the paper and collect comments?
Best regards, Tjeerd
From: Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch mailto:rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch> To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.ch mailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch> Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-003, Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV Date: 27 January, 2015 21:35:01 CET
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : David Ward Reviewers : Marc Grabalosa (chair), Silvia Borghi EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Nicola Serra Analysis note : ANA-2014-086 Deadline : 10-Feb-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-003-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1983212 https://cds.cern.ch/record/1983212 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Zee8TeVtwiki https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Zee8TeVtwiki
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: STFC (RAL), United Kingdom IHEP, Protvino, Russia ITEP, Moscow, Russia LAL, Orsay, France EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are 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 where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_... http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/lhcb_page/collaboration/organization/editorial_board/default.html
Regards, Rolf Oldeman
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto: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
- 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 all,
I agree with Jeroen that in many places sloppy language is used. We should note that some ironing out is needed.
A few more comments on my side (I do not repeat the ones Jeroen already has).
general: - You systematically write "the electron and the positron" but in some occasions you use "electron" to stand for both. For instance L.380. - I miss a section explaining bremsstrahlung correction. It is not clear if the numbers you give in Section 3 are before or after correction. - You could add many plots in additional material that would be useful for talks. A mass distribution for instance, but also some more you have shown in the approval talk. - You use pseudorapidity and rapidity interchangeably, which is correct at large momenta, but give limits 2<eta<4.5 and the say the efficiebcy is zero above y_Z>4.25. What do you do with Z between 4.25 and 4.5? - Cite the relevant Atlas and CMS papers.
footnote on title page : the author list should be at the end but is not. L214: is 2<eta<4.5 a kinematic range? I would not put [1] here. L220: Z->mumu is not "straightforward". Rephrase. L224: different _sources_ of systematic (else it could mean different magnitudes) L230: in the tracking we measure momenta, not energies. Else it could be understood that we use the calo to determine the electron energies. L234+: I would prefer \frac{\tan...}{\cosh...} L237: if you keep respectively put commas. L242: "sqrt(s)=7 tev analysis" is jargon. It's not the analysis that is at 7 TeV but the beam CM energy. Rephrase. Same for "measurement... being" that is also not at 8 TeV (you measure a cross-section, not an energy). L242-246: This sentence is too long. Split it. L242-247: three instances of "measurement". Avoid repetitions. Footnote 2: You need it already in the definition of phi*, as pt/M does has units otherwise. L286: "refine the sample of candidates for analysis" is jargon. "to reduce the same size used in the analysis" ? L289: both the electron and the positron L300: in approximately 0.7% of the cases (EB rule). But better leave out the approximation. 0.7 already means it's somewhere between 0.65 and 0.75. L309: events -> candidates L340: So PHOTOS is not used for FSR in this case? L345: "which varies significantly with y_Z" Fig.1 misses "LHCb" (all others too). "(left) y_Z and (right) phi*" (EB rule). Please explain what the vertical error means. L367: "efficiency --- these" L370: remove "of differential distribution", that's obvious. "and _on_ the integrated" L376: Do not call it a photon. Just say it's an ECAL cluster without an associated track. L377: An efficiency is determined by comparing... L380: on both the electron and the ECAL cluster. L387-9: "must be accurate" is not resolved by "Reasonable". Are you happy or not? Is there a systematic assigned? L394: "acceptance is purely geometrical". Well, yes, that's the definition -> acceptance is modelled reliably in the simulation (that's a fact, not an assumption). Fig.2: LHCb missing. A pull plot would help to judge the quality. Why "background-subtracted in parentheses? That's quite crucial. L438 I would remove "assumed to be" Fig.3: what do you mean with "integration errors"? Table 2 and 3: error -> uncertainty (twice in both tables). Why are there no spaces around \pm? Fig.5: what is happening to the Pythia prediction at 0.8 in phi*? Are there suppressed large error bars?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 05/02/15 14:06, Jeroen Van Tilburg wrote:
Hi,
I give my comments to the paper below.
Cheers Jeroen
General:
- Use the LHCb symbols everywhere e.g. for TeV (\tev)
- There is no plot showing the Z mass. It would be instructive to show
such this plot.
- At several places (abstract, L241, L481) you write that you know the
luminosity approximately. This is strange as we know the luminosity to an amazing accuracy of 1%. Please remove the word “approximately”. In addition, please quote the lumi with the same number of digits everywhere (preferably 2.0 instead of just 2).
The fact is we took approximatively 2/fb in 2012. This number is known to 1% but varies from analysis to analysis. Actually they never give the exact number they use. I am not sure if they should.
Abstract:
- “The acceptance of the measurement … in the range 60-120 GeV”. This
sentence does not read well and has to be rewritten. Some suggestions. Write "The acceptance of the detector” or “For this measurement the acceptance is defined …”. Write “defined to be in the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 4.5 and for transverse momenta above 20 GeV for the electrons ..."
- “arising FROM the luminosity”
- “which is given as the third uncertainty”. The antecedent of which
is not clear. As it is now, the antecedent is “luminosity effects”. Suggestion “… , the second is systematic (excluding luminosity effects) and the third arises from the uncertainty on the luminosity.”
- Remove “also” in “Differential cross-sections are also presented…”.
Or move “also” to the start of the sentence.
Main text: L216: “whose good acceptance”. Good sounds strange here. Not clear what you mean. Maybe use “effective” instead. L216: “extends UP to” L218: Remove “particularly" L226-7: “momentum-analysing magnet” sounds a bit strange. The magnet is not analysing. In the second part of the sentence you say that the energy of the electrons is frequently degraded, which sounds weird. Suggest: “..before they reach the magnet, and their momentum measurement is therefore degraded by …” L227: Start new sentence at which and replace “all” with completely: “This effect cannot be completely recovered..." L229: “In consequence the eletron direction..”. Suggest “As a consequence the initial electron direction…” L230: “their measured energies” -> “their measured momenta” (we measure momenta; not energies) L230: Add comma after “Therefore” L237: Remove “respectively”. It is not needed, since there is no ambiguity possible. L244: remove “and” L245: replace first “and” with “, from”. And write “and FROM AN improved modelling…” Footnote 1: "A decay Z->ee with the formation of ee through a Z” is not correct. The direct decay does not go through another Z. Suggest: “possibly through a virtual photon, including the effect of the interference with the direct decay." Footnote 2: keep on same page. L249-252: This paragraph does not work. Sect 2 and 6 are missing. It now reads as if Sect 3 starts with detector and triggers. Suggest: “Sect. 2 briefly describes …” And end with “by a brief summary in Sect. 6.” Also note that Sect. 2 is called “Detector and simulation”. So simulation should be mentioned in L249 as well. L254-5: Remove “covering the pseudorapidity range 2 < eta < 5”, since you have already discussed the effective range previously. This sentence only confuses the reader (you do no want to explain why it is defined differently here) L273: remove “charged-particle”. This is implied by track. L278: Remove “also” L296-8: The clause “where E_ECAL, … respectively” can be removed without any loss of information. The abbreviations were already introduced. L301+303: Add commas or spaces in the yields. E.g. 4,595 L302: Typo “aree” -> “are” Eq.1: Add comma at the end of the equation. Eq.2: No need to have periods at the end of Kin and Trig L327-8: Not clear what is meant with “electron and positron yield reconstructed tracks”. Not needed either. Suggest: “both tracks satisfy the selection requirements”. L330: Replace “using” with “with” to avoid to write use twice in the sentence. L338: Remove quotation marks around true. You do not have them in L326 either. L340: Why not write Pythia 8.1 as in Section 2? L354: “apart from the contribution from the leptons”: why not write electrons? Suggest to be more clear: “… after correcting for the additional SPD hits of the electrons”. Fig. 1: If you define the symbol epsilon in the caption, you need to put it in the y-axis title as well. L357: electron*s*. L375: Remove quotes around photon. Instead you could write photon candidate. L397: Remove quotes around probe. L401: “independent of y_Z and phi*”. Assume that you mean the same as on L385, i.e. that it is fully correlated between bins. If so, use the same wording here. L408: “as one of the systematic” -> “as a systematic” L415: Remove quotes around probe. L416: It is not the cut that fails, but the candidate fails the cut. Suggest to write: “that it fails the cut on the HCAL energy” L431: “statistical error” should be “systematic error”. L454: “included some LHC data” sounds as if they purposely neglected available LHC data. Suggest to delete “some”. L460: “too” -> “as well” L470+6: Write Pythia 8.1 as in Sect.2. L482: Same remark as for abstract. Fig. 4: Add unit to the left-hand y-axis [pb]. In the caption, last-but-one sentence, remove the first occurrence of “are shown”. Add hyphen in “leading-log”. Fig. 5: In the y-axis title, right-hand plot add “ / data": In the caption add hyphen in “leading-log”. Ref 17: write collaboration with lowercase.
On 29 Jan, 2015, at 16:15 pm, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nl mailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Dear all,
We have a paper on Z production to comment by our group. The deadline is Tuesday 10 February. Best date to discuss is at Friday 5 February, although a few of us (Marcel, Wputer, Eddy and me) will be absent.
Does somebody volunteer to explain the paper and collect comments?
Best regards, Tjeerd
*From: *Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch mailto:rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch> *To: *"lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.ch mailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch> *Subject: **First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2015-003, Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV* *Date: *27 January, 2015 21:35:01 CET
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Measurement of forward $Z\to e^+e^-$ production at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : David Ward Reviewers : Marc Grabalosa (chair), Silvia Borghi EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Nicola Serra Analysis note : ANA-2014-086 Deadline : 10-Feb-2015 e-group : lhcb-paper-2015-003-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1983212 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Zee8TeVtwiki
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: STFC (RAL), United Kingdom IHEP, Protvino, Russia ITEP, Moscow, Russia LAL, Orsay, France EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is the responsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are 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 where final decisions are made. As the last step a short presentation is given to the collaboration and the paper is sent for publication.
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_...
Regards, Rolf Oldeman
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto: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
Dear all,
I have combined the comments I got from Wouter, Jeroen, Patrick and Gerco (and added my own). Full list attached. I removed one question from Gerco on the frame of reference for \Delta\phi: it's a transverse quantity, so it does not depend on the boost (unless you meant to ask for the effect of the beam crossing angle) - I can add it again if you insist. There is also one from Patrick that I do not understand:
L286: "refine the sample of candidates for analysis" is jargon. "to reduce
the same size used in the analysis"
Please let me know by Monday lunchtime if there are more comments to be included, or if I missed anything.
Thanks,
Pieter
On 06/02/15 16:12, Pieter David wrote:
Dear all,
I have combined the comments I got from Wouter, Jeroen, Patrick and Gerco (and added my own). Full list attached. I removed one question from Gerco on the frame of reference for \Delta\phi: it's a transverse quantity, so it does not depend on the boost (unless you meant to ask for the effect of the beam crossing angle) - I can add it again if you insist. There is also one from Patrick that I do not understand:
L286: "refine the sample of candidates for analysis" is jargon. "to reduce
the same size used in the analysis"
well, I just don't like the way it's said. What they do is remove some obvious backgrounds. I am not sue how to phrase it, but I don't like "for analysis". We could also leave it to the EB.
Cheers,
Patrick
Please let me know by Monday lunchtime if there are more comments to be included, or if I missed anything.
Thanks,
Pieter
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Op vrijdag 6 februari 2015 16:14:56 schreef Patrick Koppenburg:
On 06/02/15 16:12, Pieter David wrote:
There is also one from Patrick that I do not understand:
L286: "refine the sample of candidates for analysis" is jargon. "to reduce the same size used in the analysis"
well, I just don't like the way it's said. What they do is remove some obvious backgrounds. I am not sue how to phrase it, but I don't like "for analysis". We could also leave it to the EB.
Thanks for clarifying!
Pieter
-
Jeroen Van Tilburg -
Patrick Koppenburg -
Pieter David -
RUGMail -
Tjeerd Ketel