Hi Patrick, et al.,

I'd have two comments on the KS->mumu CONF.

1) I still find it difficult to understand why KS->mumu is so suppressed compared to KL->mumu. I would propose to add the following text, and add a reference to Isidori who explains it:

L.5 "... is forbidden when CP is conserved, whereas the P-wave component of the decay amplitude is suppressed [Ref Isidori hep-ph/0311084]. "

L.8-10 "The corresponding branching fraction for the KL0 decay is larger, as the KL0 state is predominantly CP odd and can proceed through the large S-wave component of the amplitude, and is in excellent agreement... "

2) L.335: What is the expected limit? Do we find a better or worse limit? In other words, did the background fluctuate up or down?

Cheers, Niels

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:

Hi again,

Here are my comments on the Ks paper (I was on the RC of the 1/fb version, so curious to see how it evolved).

Cheers,

Patrick

---

Dear Giacomo, Jessica,

Congratulations for this new kaon physics result. There will be some work needed to make that a paper, and we make many comments to ease the way.

Physics: In Fig 6b you have 3 candidates around 550 while your pdf expects a tiny number here. You must be missing a component.

Line-by-line:

Title page: The LHCb logo is misplaced. I also had that depending on whether I was compiling with an old or new latex version. Try playing with the vertical spacing commands in the title page.

Title: I am not fond of "Updated" in titles (wrt what?) I no have better suggestion though.

Abstract: Collider. ... based on a sample corresponding to 1\invfb...

L.4: by the small amount of \CP violation L.7,9: I would put the refs behind the BF values. L.21: using $pp$ collision data collected in 2011 corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1\invfb. L.25: only occurence of "we" L.62: The VELO is the only detector that does not have a forward geometry. L.66: at the hardware level L.72-78: This is confusing. You seem to define TOS as meaning trigger in signal at the hardware level. Now you use the word for HLT. I suggest you avoid the use of TOS in L.75 L.90: is the ideal -> is taken as L.103: Use \Lz Fig.2: x axis: Reconstructed K_S^0 mass L.115: dominated by -> highest in. But are you really speaking of trigger efficiencies or fraction if the data coming from these trigger requirements? That's not the same. L.116: You use TIS and TOS to have different meanings, though clearly defined in the text. I am still worried about confusion for poor external readers. L.123: why not "No Bias"? L.124: s_\text{NB}. You need to explain why a prescale comes with an uncertainty. That looks like we do not know what we are doing in the trigger. L.140: is it needed to say that combinatorial background is the dominant background? L.154: remove carefully (everything we do is so) L.163: do not use p and \pt as nouns L.176: Use roman for acronyms. You seem to confuse the classifier (that is software) with its output (a number). Just say BDT output to mean the latter. L.185: add charges (you imply cc) L.190: "the pion calibration sample"? It was not mentioned before and it's calibration for what? L.191: B->J/psiK candidates (or decays). Say that J/psi->mumu. Same comment as above for "the calibration". L.192: tag-and-probe L.193: TIS at which level? L.207: and of the expected number of background candidates $B$. L.210: reweighted -> weighted L.214: 429--504 L.232: remove length. L.234: spurious "expected" (?) Eq.2: trig, sel and BDT should be in roman. Table 1: error -> uncertainty L.257: fraction of signal decays (?) L.262: you mean the full LHCb simulation or just Pythia? Table 2: Suggest to centre columns. Numbers can be aligned with \phantom{0}, ro smarter packages. L.299, 305: errors -> uncertainties L.304: events -> decays L.311: 470--600 L.315: Such -> This L.319: remove events. Avoid single sentence paragraphs. Fig.6: The labels on the pull plots are unreadable. [4] why such an old version? [25] why this even older version? [26] put initials in front (you probably have {} around the whole while it should only be {'\i} for Martinez.

Cheers,

Patrick

On 07.09.2016 07:24, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:

  Hi all,

  Reviews always come in pairs. Here's a CONF with deadline on 12
  September.

  Cheers,

  Patrick




  -------- Forwarded Message --------
  Subject:
  Conference report circulation: CONF-2016-012, Updated search for
  the decay $K^0_{\rm S} \to \mu^+\mu^-$
  Date:
  Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:36:34 +0200
  From:
  Michael Schmelling <Michael.Schmelling@mpi-hd.mpg.de>
  To:
  LHCb General mailing list <lhcb-general@cern.ch>
  CC:
  lhcb-conf-2016-012-reviewers
  <lhcb-conf-2016-012-reviewers@cern.ch>

Dear colleagues,

A conference report is available for your comments:

Team leaders, please check the reading responsibilities of your institute.

Title: Updated search for the decay $K^0_{\rm S} \to \mu^+\mu^-$ Contact authors: Giacomo_Graziani, Jessica_Prisciandaro Reviewers: Xuhao_Yuan (chair), Patrizia_De_Simone, Brian_Meadows (EB) Analysis note: ANA-2016-053 Deadline: 12-Sep-2016 e-group: lhcb-conf-2016-012-reviewers Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2213607 Twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/KsToMuMu2012

Institutes requested to submit comments on the report: Oxford__United_Kingdom NIKHEF__Amsterdam__The_Netherlands UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil LAPP__Annecy-Le-Vieux__France

After the deadline, the reviewers are charged with approving the report for public release, once they are satisfied that all comments have been taken into account. You can find all reports 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

Best regards, Michael

-- Michael Schmelling, MPI for Nuclear Physics Phone:+49-6221-516-511 Fax:+49-6221-516-603

---

Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics