Hi all,

I interleave a few more comments.

On 27/06/14 09:27, Jeroen Van Tilburg wrote:

Hi,

My comments on the paper. I find it a well written paper. I only have a few comments:

General:

• Author list: this needs to go in the back now.
• Style: there seems to be additional spacing between the paragraphs. Not that I mind, but maybe check with the EB rules.

and there are no indents. I don't like it, but it may be acceptable.

• Detector section: I think this needs updating from the template. In particular l.43.
• When a reference to a Figure appears at the start of the sentence, you need to write “Figure”, otherwise “Fig.” (see l.166, l.203)
• Avoid “reweighting”, just write “weighting"

Specific:

Abstract: replace the and between the BFs by a comma. -l.8: The composition of the Kpipi system -> its composition

• l.12: P-wave -> $P$-wave (the P is also in italic later on in the sentence.

Usually we put P and S in roman, but I don't mid too much

• l.12: “, governed by the mixing angle” -> “with mixing angle” (In this way you avoid the repetition in the construction “resulting from mixing of ..., governed by the mixing angle”. Note to remove the comma.)
• l.59: Kaons -> kaons (lowercase)
• l.59: The decay description is wrong. The D0bar should be D0.

well spotted. Also: you use twice corrected and once reweighted. Are they different concepts or not? If so, how? If not, use the same word. l.173-4: 121.0, 16.0 -> 121, 16.

• l.81: Remove the value of the phi mass. Anyway it is given with too many digits (compared to the 12 MeV before). Everyone can look it up in the PDG. This number will not change with more significant digits then the 12 MeV mass window that you are using.
• l.86: psi -> J/psi (for consistency with the rest of the document)

l.95: no need to give the PDG masses (also elsewhere).

• l.110: signal and background yields (add yields or similar).
• l.111: remove respectively. Avoid excessive use of respectively. In this case there is no ambiguity, so it should be removed.
• l.113: branching fraction ratio -> branching ratio (although branching fraction ratio is not incorrect, branching ratio is more than widely used for this).
• l.119-120: “...known to be …, … measured to be….” -> remove both. Just say "the branching fraction is B(bla) = xxx". Right now it sounds as if there is a difference between the two branching fractions from the PDG (e.g. that one is measured and the other is not measured, but everyone just knows it is so much).

Also: The decay descriptors should use \decay{}{} to get the right spacing after the \to. Also elsewhere in the paper. L.121: remove complete

• l.132: Why do you have a double Crystal Ball with the tail on the same side? I seriously doubt that this is needed. A Gaussian plus Crystal Ball should be enough. Surprisingly enough, this choice seems to give a relatively large effect in the systematics, which I do not understand.
• l.138 and l.141 and l.167: cross-check channel -> calibration channel

Fig.1: The step at 5230 is coming from yor selection cuts, but should be reminded in the caption. l.153: no need to give the BF Fig.3: The bin 1-6 should have a different marker to make clear it's not independent. Maybe a too late request: why was the bin 4-9 not split? The uncertainty is tiny here. l.164-67: rephrase as "Fig 4 shows the distribution for the full... using the sPlot technique. No attempt is made to resolve... l.177: systematics -> the systematic uncertainties

• l.179: “data and simulation, data-driven corrections” (add comma and hyphen)
• l.186: "This is corrected for by reweighing...” -> “These are corrected by weighting”
• l.194+243: “reweighted” -> “weighted”
• l.203: "Therefore,” (add comma)

l.207: do you need to repeat it's Wilk's theorem?

• l.239: Remove comma and write instead “in”

Cheers Jeroen

Cheers,

Patrick

On 26 Jun, 2014, at 17:07 pm, Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl wrote:

...

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

...

Dear colleagues,

Bfys Meeting Friday 27 June at 9:30 in N328 and Vidyo

9:30 - 9:55 Staff meeting (only permanent staff)

10:00 - 11:00 Discussion and comments on PAPER-2014-030 "First observation of the rare decays B+ to K+ pi+ pi- mu+ mu- and B+ to phi K+ mu+ mu-". Link: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1709122 Deadline: 27-Jun-2014 I propose to cc comments to this paper in advance and at the meeting we decide which comments to be posted at the end of the day.

The material can be found at http://agenda.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=2876 and will be protected by lhcb, etc.

Vidyo link in Nikhef Bfys Meeting (at Institutes->Nikhef of Friday 14 March 2014) https://indico.cern.ch/event/307385/ protected by PIN 1328.

Best regards, Tjeerd

---

Bfys-physics mailing list 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

Stupid me. I forgot to include Patrick’s and Tjeerd’s comments, initially. I just added them to the Nikhef comments on CDS.

Cheers Jeroen

On 27 Jun, 2014, at 12:11 pm, Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl wrote:

Dear Jeroen,

Thanks for collecting the comments for this paper.

Tjeerd

I add my remaining minor comments.

Line 8: Add "invariant mass" to "composition".

Line 10: Replace " K1 meson was found to be a prominant contribution" by " K1 meson was found to give a prominant contribution".

Line 17: Replace "which are FCNCs with a real rather than virtual photon" by "which are due to FCNCs with a real photon".

Figure 1:

• Make the step in the background (not in the signal) more visible

by replacing the grey shading by white with a line above it.

• Replace "candidates in bins of q2" by

"candidates in different intervals of q2". (The spectra are presented in bins of m).

Figure 2: Add "candidates" before ", respectively".

Figure 3: Replace badly visible shaded grey regions by dotted vertical lines that limit the charmonium regions.

Line 251: Replace it by "In Fig. 3 and Table 1 the differential branching fraction dB()/dq2 is presented in different q2 intervals for the decay B+->K+pi+pi-mu+mu-" and move it to be the last sentence. (The sentences 246, 248 and 252 are about q2 integrated results.)