[Bfys-physics] Fwd: CORRECTION concerning reading institutions for PAPER-2013-016, Production of $J/\psi$~and $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$ and $\Upsilon(3S)$~mesons at $\sqrt{s}=$8~TeV
A new paper for Nikhef!
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: CORRECTION concerning reading institutions for PAPER-2013-016, Production of $J/\psi$~and $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$ and $\Upsilon(3S)$~mesons at $\sqrt{s}=$8~TeV Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:37:51 +0100 From: Rolf Oldeman rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch To: lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list) lhcb-general@cern.ch
Apologies, I made a mistake with the assignment of the reading institutions. The correct assignment is below. Best regards, Rolf
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Production of $J/\psi$~and $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$ and $\Upsilon(3S)$~mesons at $\sqrt{s}=$8~TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Monica Pepe-Altarelli, Giulia Manca Reviewers : Johannes Albrecht (chair), Chris Parkes EB reviewer : Raluca Muresan EB readers : Niels Tuning, Joerg Marks Analysis note : ANA-2012-058 Deadline : 30-Mar-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-016-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1528576 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/JPsiUpsilon8TeVXsec
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Cambridge, United Kingdom CBPF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Moscow State University, Russia LPNHE, Paris, France, Cincinnati, United States 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 referees 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
On Mar 16, 2013, at 9:43 AM, Rolf Oldeman wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Production of $J/\psi$~and $\Upsilon(1S)$, $\Upsilon(2S)$ and $\Upsilon(3S)$~mesons at $\sqrt{s}=$8~TeV
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Monica Pepe-Altarelli, Giulia Manca Reviewers : Johannes Albrecht (chair), Chris Parkes EB reviewer : Raluca Muresan EB readers : Niels Tuning, Joerg Marks Analysis note : ANA-2012-058 Deadline : 30-Mar-2013 e-group : lhcb-paper-2013-016-reviewers Link : http://cds.cern.ch/record/1528576 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/LHCbPhysics/JPsiUpsilon8TeVXsec
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Frascati, Italy MPIK, Heidelberg, Germany STFC (RAL), United Kingdom IHEP, Protvino, Russia Imperial College London, United Kingdom Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg, Germany
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 referees 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
Dear all,
I am collecting comments from our group on the J/psi, Y paper; https://svnweb.cern.ch/cern/wsvn/lhcbdocs/Status/PAPER-2013-016.html
The deadline is Saturday 30 March, sorry for the late notice.
Cheers, Niels
Dear all,
Atached is my list of comments for the J/psi and Y paper. Please let me know by tomorrow evening if yoyu have other comments.
Cheers, Niels
PS. My main points are:
Main comments: ---------------- 1) L.47-49 This formulation is not completely logical? A direct connection is suggested between the amount of pile-up and the number of filled bunches, which are only indirectly related. How about simply: "During this period the average number of interactions per crossing varied."
2) L.82-87 Perhaps it is better to refer to the vector meson as 'V', rather than 'P', since many people use 'P' for pseudo-scalar.
3) L.190 You use an uncertainty of 8.6% from BR(b->J/psiX)=(1.16 +- 0.10)%, based on LEP data, if we understand correctly? It is a large contribution, and it is not so easy to trace this number in the PDG. It would be good to quote the PDG, and probably also the Delphi paper Phys.Lett. B341 (1994) 109-122 , which is the most precise, to indicate this comes from Z-decays.
4) L.220/221 Why did you choose not to assign a systematic uncertainty to the extrapolation to 4pi ?
5) L.235-237 You use the notation B^iS. The explicit notation BR(Y(1S)), BR(Y(2S)) and BR(Y(3S)) is more clear, still dense enough for the figure axes. The notation R^iS/1S refers to only two variants, R^2S/1S and R^3S/1S and could also be used instead of the 'iS', and R^(2S,3S)/1S on the axis labels.
6) L.236 Add '(corr)' and '(uncorr)' behind the errors in the result, to make it clear it is not (stat) and (syst) as usual. L.239 In fact, what do you mean with 'correlated between bins' ? As this result is the integrated result, there are no correlations between bins? Presumably this comes form adding the binned result in quadrature? Perhaps this can be clarified with a sentence?
7) The supplementary Fig.13 could also fit nicely in the body of the paper?
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Niels Tuning wrote:
Dear all,
I am collecting comments from our group on the J/psi, Y paper; https://svnweb.cern.ch/cern/wsvn/lhcbdocs/Status/PAPER-2013-016.html
The deadline is Saturday 30 March, sorry for the late notice.
Cheers, Niels
Dear Niels,
Here are a few more
L.15: write as [5-8] L.51: "one visible" looks like the value is exact. L.135: Just to be sure, you first fit the Y(1S), then you fix the width and refit the Y(2S) and Y(3S)? Or you run a simultaneous fit that is 99% dominated by the Y(1S)? Fig.1 (righ) is too small while Fig2 is too big. Why not swap them? Then you'd have all masses in Fig.1 and the lifetime in full width in Fig.2 L.153: 0.7--2.2% (long dashes) Eq.3: why don't you also give the b cross section in the acceptance, i.e. without alpha_4pi? Fig.11: why does the point at 7 TeV have much larger errors? [40] collaboration
One question about strategy: Our first bin is 2<y<2.5 (as in the 7 TeV paper). CMS recently published their 7(!) TeV Y cross sections with a last bin at 2<y<2.4. Would it be useful to also have results for 7 and 8 TeV to be able to compare like to like?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 03/28/2013 03:35 PM, Niels Tuning wrote:
Dear all,
Atached is my list of comments for the J/psi and Y paper. Please let me know by tomorrow evening if yoyu have other comments.
Cheers, Niels
PS. My main points are:
Main comments:
- L.47-49 This formulation is not completely logical? A direct
connection is suggested between the amount of pile-up and the number of filled bunches, which are only indirectly related. How about simply: "During this period the average number of interactions per crossing varied."
- L.82-87 Perhaps it is better to refer to the vector meson as 'V',
rather than 'P', since many people use 'P' for pseudo-scalar.
- L.190 You use an uncertainty of 8.6% from BR(b->J/psiX)=(1.16 +-
0.10)%, based on LEP data, if we understand correctly? It is a large contribution, and it is not so easy to trace this number in the PDG. It would be good to quote the PDG, and probably also the Delphi paper Phys.Lett. B341 (1994) 109-122 , which is the most precise, to indicate this comes from Z-decays.
- L.220/221 Why did you choose not to assign a systematic uncertainty
to the extrapolation to 4pi ?
- L.235-237 You use the notation B^iS. The explicit notation BR(Y(1S)),
BR(Y(2S)) and BR(Y(3S)) is more clear, still dense enough for the figure axes. The notation R^iS/1S refers to only two variants, R^2S/1S and R^3S/1S and could also be used instead of the 'iS', and R^(2S,3S)/1S on the axis labels.
- L.236 Add '(corr)' and '(uncorr)' behind the errors in the result, to
make it clear it is not (stat) and (syst) as usual. L.239 In fact, what do you mean with 'correlated between bins' ? As this result is the integrated result, there are no correlations between bins? Presumably this comes form adding the binned result in quadrature? Perhaps this can be clarified with a sentence?
- The supplementary Fig.13 could also fit nicely in the body of the paper?
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Niels Tuning wrote:
Dear all,
I am collecting comments from our group on the J/psi, Y paper; https://svnweb.cern.ch/cern/wsvn/lhcbdocs/Status/PAPER-2013-016.html
The deadline is Saturday 30 March, sorry for the late notice.
Cheers, Niels
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear all,
Monica and Giulia answered to our comments: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1537830?ln=en https://cds.cern.ch/record/1537830/files/Reply_Tuning.pdf
I think it is satisfactory, below are the most important answers. There are only a few minor things to be clarified.
Cheers, Niels
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6) L.239 What do you mean with 'correlated between bins' ? As this result is the integrated result, there are no correlations between bins? Presumably this comes form adding the binned result in quadrature?
Correct, the integrated result is obtained by summing the cross sections in each bin taking care of the correlations. For the integrated cross section we moved to use stat and syst and we changed the text accordingly.
(Patrick, this is what they answered to you:)
0) One question about strategy: Our first bin is 2<y<2.5 (as in the 7 TeV paper). CMS recently published their 7(!) TeV Y cross sections with a last bin at 2<y<2.4. Would it be useful to also have results for 7 and 8 TeV to be able to compare like to like?
You are right the comparison with Atlas and CMS is important and we always tried to do it when possible. In the past we have compared also if the rapidity and pT ranges were very different. We are happy CMS went down to 2.0 in their latest publication and we think the overlap is more than satisfactory, the number of events in 0.1 unit of rapidity does not prevent us to make meaningful comparisons as you can see here : http://manca.web.cern.ch/manca/LHCbCMSComp.pdf Thus we believe there is no need to change our rapidity range or to modify it for this reason. 1)
L.135 [Just to be sure, you first fit the Y(1S), then you fix the width and refit the Y(2S) and Y(3S)? Or you run a simultaneous fit that is 99% dominated by the Y(1S)?]
I first fit leaving the means and widths free, then I fix the width of the 1S to the value I observe and the widths of the 2s and 3s to the value of the width of the 1S multiplied by the ratio of the masses of 1s and 2s and 3s, i.e. sigma(2S) = (m(2S)/m(1S)) * sigma(1S) and the same for the 2S. This is confirmed by simulation and by several checks we performed.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Niels Tuning wrote:
Dear all,
Atached is my list of comments for the J/psi and Y paper. Please let me know by tomorrow evening if yoyu have other comments.
Cheers, Niels
PS. My main points are:
Main comments:
- L.47-49 This formulation is not completely logical? A direct connection is
suggested between the amount of pile-up and the number of filled bunches, which are only indirectly related. How about simply: "During this period the average number of interactions per crossing varied."
- L.82-87 Perhaps it is better to refer to the vector meson as 'V', rather
than 'P', since many people use 'P' for pseudo-scalar.
- L.190 You use an uncertainty of 8.6% from BR(b->J/psiX)=(1.16 +- 0.10)%,
based on LEP data, if we understand correctly? It is a large contribution, and it is not so easy to trace this number in the PDG. It would be good to quote the PDG, and probably also the Delphi paper Phys.Lett. B341 (1994) 109-122 , which is the most precise, to indicate this comes from Z-decays.
- L.220/221 Why did you choose not to assign a systematic uncertainty to the
extrapolation to 4pi ?
- L.235-237 You use the notation B^iS. The explicit notation BR(Y(1S)),
BR(Y(2S)) and BR(Y(3S)) is more clear, still dense enough for the figure axes. The notation R^iS/1S refers to only two variants, R^2S/1S and R^3S/1S and could also be used instead of the 'iS', and R^(2S,3S)/1S on the axis labels.
- L.236 Add '(corr)' and '(uncorr)' behind the errors in the result, to make
it clear it is not (stat) and (syst) as usual. L.239 In fact, what do you mean with 'correlated between bins' ? As this result is the integrated result, there are no correlations between bins? Presumably this comes form adding the binned result in quadrature? Perhaps this can be clarified with a sentence?
- The supplementary Fig.13 could also fit nicely in the body of the paper?
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Niels Tuning wrote:
Dear all,
I am collecting comments from our group on the J/psi, Y paper; https://svnweb.cern.ch/cern/wsvn/lhcbdocs/Status/PAPER-2013-016.html
The deadline is Saturday 30 March, sorry for the late notice.
Cheers, Niels
--
-
Niels Tuning -
Patrick Koppenburg -
Patrick Koppenburg