Dear friends,
Here is a proposal for the general comment I would like to submit to the Bs->mumu paper along the lines as we discussed in the meeting last friday. I have understood in the mean time that the authors are working on a condensed version of the paper, so some of our comment might already be solved. However, I do think we should inform the authors of our opinion of the first draft.
---------------------------------------------------
Dear authors,
This comments below result after a Nikhef group discussion of the Bs->mumu paper draft (noting that our local Bs->mumu experts were not involved). From your answers to other comments we have understood that you are currently preparing a shorter version of the paper, so we here give only our main, general, feedback. This is an excellent (and complex) analysis leading to an important result that will receive a lot of attention. However, it was generally commented in our group that the paper is very dense with information and difficult to read. Many intricacies of the analysis, although mentioned, are difficult to understand for an outsider. In several cases we had to turn to the analysis note to understand what was being done (the analysis note is of excellent quality!). We get the impression that the paper in its current state tries to include the wealth of information of the analysis note into a letter, and therefor becomes very difficult to read for an outsider.
In particular it was commented in our group that the "Analysis Strategy" section in the *analysis note* was much more helpful to understand the measurement than the corresponding section in the paper. (e.g. alpha = normalization factor or *single event sensitivity*).
Here are some examples that triggered our comments:
Section 5.1 It is hard to understand the exact role of MC. Although we understand that the measurement uses data as much as possible for normalization, the efficiency calculations are done by MC. However, the tracking uncertainty of 4%/track is taken from another paper, where it is calibrated with data from other channels. (By the way: is the value of 4% relevant for B->mumu?).
Section 5.2 This section is very dense with information and very difficult for a non-LHCb collaborator to understand. If TIS-TOS-ing is new to the reader, it is very difficult to understand the text on the bottom of page 7.
Section 6 Here several details of the analysis could be skipped in a letter. E.g the exact use of Crystal Ball functions and value of alpha (confusing notation with "normalization factor" alpha). The text of the determination of the GL with B->hh , and the solution to the trigger TIS complication using emulation is difficult to follow.
best regards, - Marcel for the Nikhef/VU groups
Hi Marcel et al.,
Few comments from my side: - "Dear authors". Everybody of LHCb is an author. I don't know the official nomenclature for these "priciple authors" or "writers club". - Is there any hope that "our local Bs->mumu experts" find a chance before the deadline to add their comments. Would be stronger if this caveat could be deleted. - There is a draft version and that is the one the collaboration is commenting on. The fact that they work on a newer one is more or less irrelevant. (And kind of a waste of time since they don't have the comments on the previous one yet.) If they were not happy yet with this draft they should not have send it in for comments, thus spoiling everybody's time. - I would use line numbers as much as possible to identify parts of the text we are having trouble with. - I would stress the fact that, once published, readers of P.L. won't have access to the analysis note: they will have to understand what has been done in the analysis based on the text of the Letter only. - I don't mind replacing here and there "it will be difficult for the reader to understand" by "it will be impossible for the reader to understand". - Squeezing 120 pages into 10 is a very difficult job, but it is better to leave out details than producing a huge collection of unexplained statements.
eddy
P.S. - "This comments below result" Here is a single/plural mixup. - "therefor" -> therefore
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Marcel Merk wrote:
Dear friends,
Here is a proposal for the general comment I would like to submit to the Bs->mumu paper along the lines as we discussed in the meeting last friday. I have understood in the mean time that the authors are working on a condensed version of the paper, so some of our comment might already be solved. However, I do think we should inform the authors of our opinion of the first draft.
Dear authors,
This comments below result after a Nikhef group discussion of the Bs->mumu paper draft (noting that our local Bs->mumu experts were not involved). From your answers to other comments we have understood that you are currently preparing a shorter version of the paper, so we here give only our main, general, feedback. This is an excellent (and complex) analysis leading to an important result that will receive a lot of attention. However, it was generally commented in our group that the paper is very dense with information and difficult to read. Many intricacies of the analysis, although mentioned, are difficult to understand for an outsider. In several cases we had to turn to the analysis note to understand what was being done (the analysis note is of excellent quality!). We get the impression that the paper in its current state tries to include the wealth of information of the analysis note into a letter, and therefor becomes very difficult to read for an outsider.
In particular it was commented in our group that the "Analysis Strategy" section in the *analysis note* was much more helpful to understand the measurement than the corresponding section in the paper. (e.g. alpha = normalization factor or *single event sensitivity*).
Here are some examples that triggered our comments:
Section 5.1 It is hard to understand the exact role of MC. Although we understand that the measurement uses data as much as possible for normalization, the efficiency calculations are done by MC. However, the tracking uncertainty of 4%/track is taken from another paper, where it is calibrated with data from other channels. (By the way: is the value of 4% relevant for B->mumu?).
Section 5.2 This section is very dense with information and very difficult for a non-LHCb collaborator to understand. If TIS-TOS-ing is new to the reader, it is very difficult to understand the text on the bottom of page 7.
Section 6 Here several details of the analysis could be skipped in a letter. E.g the exact use of Crystal Ball functions and value of alpha (confusing notation with "normalization factor" alpha). The text of the determination of the GL with B->hh , and the solution to the trigger TIS complication using emulation is difficult to follow.
best regards,
- Marcel for the Nikhef/VU groups
Hi Eddy,
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 13:46 +0100, Eddy Jans wrote:
Hi Marcel et al.,
Few comments from my side:
- "Dear authors". Everybody of LHCb is an author. I don't know the
official nomenclature for these "priciple authors" or "writers club".
"proponents" is the official term.
Cheers,
Patrick
- Is there any hope that "our local Bs->mumu experts" find a chance before
the deadline to add their comments. Would be stronger if this caveat could be deleted.
- There is a draft version and that is the one the collaboration is
commenting on. The fact that they work on a newer one is more or less irrelevant. (And kind of a waste of time since they don't have the comments on the previous one yet.) If they were not happy yet with this draft they should not have send it in for comments, thus spoiling everybody's time.
- I would use line numbers as much as possible to identify parts of the
text we are having trouble with.
- I would stress the fact that, once published, readers of P.L. won't
have access to the analysis note: they will have to understand what has been done in the analysis based on the text of the Letter only.
- I don't mind replacing here and there "it will be difficult for the
reader to understand" by "it will be impossible for the reader to understand".
- Squeezing 120 pages into 10 is a very difficult job, but it is better
to leave out details than producing a huge collection of unexplained statements.
eddy
P.S.
- "This comments below result" Here is a single/plural mixup.
- "therefor" -> therefore
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Marcel Merk wrote:
Dear friends,
Here is a proposal for the general comment I would like to submit to the Bs->mumu paper along the lines as we discussed in the meeting last friday. I have understood in the mean time that the authors are working on a condensed version of the paper, so some of our comment might already be solved. However, I do think we should inform the authors of our opinion of the first draft.
Dear authors,
This comments below result after a Nikhef group discussion of the Bs->mumu paper draft (noting that our local Bs->mumu experts were not involved). From your answers to other comments we have understood that you are currently preparing a shorter version of the paper, so we here give only our main, general, feedback. This is an excellent (and complex) analysis leading to an important result that will receive a lot of attention. However, it was generally commented in our group that the paper is very dense with information and difficult to read. Many intricacies of the analysis, although mentioned, are difficult to understand for an outsider. In several cases we had to turn to the analysis note to understand what was being done (the analysis note is of excellent quality!). We get the impression that the paper in its current state tries to include the wealth of information of the analysis note into a letter, and therefor becomes very difficult to read for an outsider.
In particular it was commented in our group that the "Analysis Strategy" section in the *analysis note* was much more helpful to understand the measurement than the corresponding section in the paper. (e.g. alpha = normalization factor or *single event sensitivity*).
Here are some examples that triggered our comments:
Section 5.1 It is hard to understand the exact role of MC. Although we understand that the measurement uses data as much as possible for normalization, the efficiency calculations are done by MC. However, the tracking uncertainty of 4%/track is taken from another paper, where it is calibrated with data from other channels. (By the way: is the value of 4% relevant for B->mumu?).
Section 5.2 This section is very dense with information and very difficult for a non-LHCb collaborator to understand. If TIS-TOS-ing is new to the reader, it is very difficult to understand the text on the bottom of page 7.
Section 6 Here several details of the analysis could be skipped in a letter. E.g the exact use of Crystal Ball functions and value of alpha (confusing notation with "normalization factor" alpha). The text of the determination of the GL with B->hh , and the solution to the trigger TIS complication using emulation is difficult to follow.
best regards,
- Marcel for the Nikhef/VU groups
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Eddy Jans -
Marcel Merk -
Patrick Koppenburg