Dear all,

I merged the comments from Jeroen and Kristof with mine (see att). I copy the main points below, for your convenience.

Let me know if you have any more comments; I plan to submit at 17:00 today.

Cheers, Niels

Main comments ------------------ 1) We would like to keep the mentioning of the "robust result" consistent throughout. Now, "B(s)->D(s)K(*)" and "B->DK-like" are used. We would prefer the latter.

2) We feel that LHCb should quote only one result for gamma in the abstract. We would prefer then the full combination result, as the studies over the last years increased the confidence in this thorough analysis. To reflect the asymmetric shape of the likelihood, we would quote it as: gamma = 78.9 +5.7 -11, ie. extending the lower edge to around 68 deg. (Also for the CL region in Fig.6).

3) L.77/78 Q: Is there anything different from using the 3 fb-1 result as compared to using the 1+2 fb-1 results separately? Perhaps an extra sentence on the changes is interesting?

4) L.84 Q: It is not clear from the sentence whether the previous combination did _not_ include GLS, or only 1 fb-1 ? L.104 Same question for the GLW/ADS with K*0. Probably it is enough to put "using 3 fb-1" between brackets: "(using 3 fb-1)".

5) L.91-93 Q: "For the robust combination ... to cancel any information from the B->Dpi system." Could you maybe add in one sentence how the B->Dpi decays enter in the robust combination?

6) Eq.61: The number for direct CPV in D0->KK seems wrong (should be (-0.11+0.14-0.13)% instead of (-0.15+-0.14)% , see Fit#3: 10 ak -0.11071 -0.13477 +0.13509 http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/charm/FPCP14/results_mix+cpv.html )

7) Ordering of Tables / Figures on pages 11-13: * Would Tab.3 and Tab.5 fit on the same page, to make the comparison easier? * Tab. 4 could fit on same page as Tab.2 ? * Would Fig.2 and Fig.3 fit on the same page?

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014, Jeroen Van Tilburg wrote:

Hi Niels, Find my comments below. Could you add them to yours?

General:

• It took me until I saw the likelihood plots that I started to understand the reason for having the robust and full combinations. It leaves the reader in confusion to

quote two results in the abstract. In particular, no good reason is given why the full combination should not be trusted or be less trusted (a possible one degree shift from the D0 mixing does not explain the difference). Suggest to choose one combination for the abstract, and add a short discussion on the shape of the 1-CL plots.

• The lower 1-sigma limit for the full combination is wrong. From the 1-CL plot, you can clearly see that you need to include a larger region. Either remove the 68.3% CL

region numbers for the full combination, or extend the lower limit.

• Eq.61: The number for direct CPV in D0->KK is wrong (should be -0.11+0.14-0.13)%. Did you put in the right number in your fits?

Specific:

• The abstract is a mess. The sentence “The effect … account.” is put in the middle of another sentence.
• Abstract: in the list of D decay modes, you can change "\pi^\pm \pi^\mp” with "\pi^+ \pi^-“ (2 times). Same for the KsKK mode.
• Abstract and conclusion: you first quote the best fit value and then the confidence interval. Suggest to change the order. First the CI, then the best fit value.
• Abstract: It took me a while to notice that the robust result is excluding the B->Dpi results. Suggest to spell this out. Add “i.e. excluding B->Dpi results” after

“alone, “

• Everywhere, change the notation for the B0->D0 K*0 to B->DK*0. So w/o the 0 for the charm meson. To be consistent with the rest of the note.
• l.37 + 127: “The input measurements reach their best sensitivity when combined with auxiliary information….”. This is does not make sense. Please rephrase. But also it

makes me wonder what happens when we do not use external constraints. Can we still fit gamma with a good accuracy? If so, please mention this and I would like to see a comparison of the hadronic parameters from LHCb and CLEO. If not, then simply say that you need external input. Not that you can reach a slightly better accuracy with CLEO data.

• Tab.1 caption: “Free parameters” -> They cannot all be free.
• Table 1: What does the horizontal line in the table mean? Mention this in the caption (free and fixed parameters).
• Tab.1 caption: Add full stop after Ref. [1]. And you need to reference both Eqs. 45 and 46.
• Sect. 2: Suggest to first give all equations, and then introduce the input results. So move l.56-62 outside of Sec.2.1.
• Eq 2: The comma between CP and fav is confusing. Suggest to put a “/“ instead. Or replace completely with e.g. “state” and mention in the text that state can be either

CP or fav.

• l.60: favoured
• l.60+62: Make the D0 consistent in this decay chain.
• l.60: Why do you talk about “decay chain”? Just talk about the final state (as in l.59). This is what matters.
• Eq.24: It is not clear to me what the definition of x and y is.
• Eq.25: You use a different notation for the D decay here with […]_D. Make this consistent.
• Eq.25: Suggest to rename this to R^{Dpi,KsKpi}. To make it consistent with Eq. 3.
• l.110: 3/fb should be 1/fb
• l.138: You have already mentioned the amplitude ratio in l.129. Why don’t you merge 3.1 and 3.2?
• Table 5: What are the numbers in the right-most column???

Cheers Jeroen

On 28 Aug, 2014, at 16:18 pm, Niels Tuning h71@nikhef.nl wrote:

  Dear all,

  I attach my list of comments/suggestions on the gamma combination.
  For convenience I add my main comments below in this mail.

  Cheers, Niels


  General/Questions
  ------------------
  1) We would like to keep the mentioning of the "robust result" consistent
  throughout. Now, both "B(s)->D(s)K(*)" and "B->DK-like" are used.
  We would prefer the latter.

  2) L.77/78 Q: Is there anything different from using the 3 fb-1 result as
  compared to using the 1+2 fb-1 results separately? Perhaps an extra sentence on the changes is interesting?

  3) L.84 Q: It is not clear from the sentence whether the previous combination did _not_ include GLS, or only 1 fb-1 ?
  L.104 Same question for the GLW/ADS with K*0.
  L.110 Same question for TD DsK.
  Perhaps it is enough to put "using 3 fb-1" between brackets: "(using 3 fb-1)".

  4) L.91-93 Q: "For the robust combination ... to cancel any information
  from the B->Dpi system." Could you maybe add in one sentence how the
  B->Dpi decays enter in the robust combination?

  5) Ordering of Tables / Figures on pages 11-13:
  * Would Tab.3 and Tab.5 fit on the same page, to make the comparison easier?
  * Tab. 4 could fit on same page as Tab.2 ?
  * Would Fig.2 and Fig.3 fit on the same page?



  On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

        Dear all,

        We also have a conference report for Nikhef to comment before 3 September.
        I propose to discuss it tomorrow at the bfys meeting.
        I will add it to the agenda.

        Best regards,
         Tjeerd

        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:06:44 +0000
        From: Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch>
        To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.ch>
        Subject: Conference report circulation: CONF-2014-004,
          Improved constraints on $\gamma$: CKM2014 update

        Dear colleagues,

        A conference report is available for your comments:

        Title: Improved constraints on $\gamma$: CKM2014 update
        Contact authors: Moritz Karbach, Matt Kenzie, Denis Derkach
        Reviewers: Tom Latham (chair), Karim Trabelsi, Claudia Patrignani (EB)
        Analysis note: ANA-2014-069
        Deadline: 03-Sep-2014
        e-group: lhcb-conf-2014-004-reviewers
        Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1752169
        Twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/GammaCombinationCKM2014

        Institutes requested to submit comments on the report:
        NIKHEF VU, Netherlands
        Ferrara, Italy
        NSC KIPT, Kharkiv, Ukraine, Universitaet Rostock, Germany
        CPPM, Marseille, France

        After the deadline, the reviewers are charged with approving the report
        for public release, once they are satisfied that any 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/edboard/EditorialBoard.html

        Regards, Rolf Oldeman



  -- <comments-niels-28082014.txt>_______________________________________________
  Bfys-physics mailing list
  Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl
  https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics