Dear colleagues,
Bfys Meeting Friday 4 March at 9:30 in N328 and Vidyo
9:30 - 9:55 Staff meeting (permanent staff only)
10:00 - 10:45 "B(s) -> mumu normalization and B meson fragmentation fraction ratio fs/fd" by Jennifer Zonneveld 10:45 - 11:30 "Introduction and discussion of LHCb-PAPER-2016-007" by ??? https://cds.cern.ch/record/213404 Deadline: 9-Mar-2016
Material (and als Vidyo link) at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=368 protected by PIN 1328.
Direct Vidyo link on the Nikhef Indico (above) equivalent to: http://vidyoportal.cern.ch/flex.html?roomdirect.html&key=LCjLrDFb9I8L7Eb... protected by PIN 1328.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Dear colleagues,
Wrong cds address in previous email https://cds.cern.ch/record/213404 must be 2134041
Bfys Meeting Friday 4 March at 9:30 in N328 and Vidyo
9:30 - 9:55 Staff meeting (permanent staff only)
10:00 - 10:45 "B(s) -> mumu normalization and B meson fragmentation fraction ratio fs/fd" by Jennifer Zonneveld 10:45 - 11:30 "Introduction and discussion of LHCb-PAPER-2016-007" by ??? https://cds.cern.ch/record/2134041 Deadline: 9-Mar-2016
Material (and als Vidyo link) at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=368 protected by PIN 1328.
Direct Vidyo link on the Nikhef Indico (above) equivalent to: http://vidyoportal.cern.ch/flex.html?roomdirect.html&key=LCjLrDFb9I8L7Eb... protected by PIN 1328.
Best regards, Tjeerd
Hi all,
here are my comments on the gamma paper.
Cheers,
Patrick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics: Your fit in Fig.2 indicates that the part reco background is 100% of the data below 5000 MeV. That seems unlikely. There must be B->DKnpi decays kicking in. By eye the contribution from comb background could easily be half of what you fit. In the systematics it seems you vary within stat uncertainties, which is 10% of this background. What happens if you vary it within 50%?
Text: L.3: how many current flavour physics experiments are there? L.12: "more than 10" could be anything. Why not quote 11 degrees from 1406.6311 ? And why not give the central values for B factories and LHCb? L.15: a sentence explaining why global fits get 2 degrees would be useful. In particular on what they assume. L.35: ratio r_B of interfering amplitudes ... (connects with next sentence) L.36: expected -> measured L.48: {\cal H} is undefined, but probably OK Eq.2: the star is unusual. Is that intentional? L.55: Suddenly a "we" L.58: no colon L.62: this sentence is mysterious without reading [10]. Can you explain briefly why? L.69: Section 2 (start of paragraph) L.83: say the polarity can be reversed. You'll need it later. L.123: pt is already defined, but OK. L.124: flight distance significance wrt what? The PV or the origin vertex (B or D)? How do you define this significance? d/err? That's not a significance. L.134: ADS/GLW is undefined. Explain how that paper differs from the present. L.151: We understand you use log for convenience, but are surprised it improves the BDT. A BDT is a set of splits. Any monotonous transformation would leave that unchanged. L.167: A reference here would be useful. Or at least the argument of l.364 L.221: the one -> that L.222: published by LHCb is not needed here Eq.7 and 8: model, mass and cand should be in roman. L.266-269: add charges to all particles where applicable. L.271: remove space before footnote L.394-413: add charges to all particles where applicable. L.404: why [51] and not [21]? Fig.6-10: amazingly you managed to write this paper without ever using GGSZ. So remove it here too. L.458: any comment on how to combine the two results? Or not to combine them? The papers will come out at the same time, so both should say something. [6] is also by the CKMfitter group (though arxiv doesn't say so). [8,9] why not in chronological order? [34] Belle collaboration [39,42,47] seem to have unsplittable journal refs. Is your LHCb.bst old?
On 26/02/16 13:10, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Wrong cds address in previous email https://cds.cern.ch/record/213404 must be 2134041
Bfys Meeting Friday 4 March at 9:30 in N328 and Vidyo
9:30 - 9:55 Staff meeting (permanent staff only)
10:00 - 10:45 "B(s) -> mumu normalization and B meson fragmentation fraction ratio fs/fd" by Jennifer Zonneveld 10:45 - 11:30 "Introduction and discussion of LHCb-PAPER-2016-007" by ??? https://cds.cern.ch/record/2134041 Deadline: 9-Mar-2016
Material (and als Vidyo link) at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=368 protected by PIN 1328.
Direct Vidyo link on the Nikhef Indico (above) equivalent to: http://vidyoportal.cern.ch/flex.html?roomdirect.html&key=LCjLrDFb9I8L7Eb... protected by PIN 1328.
Best regards, Tjeerd _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Dear all,
After having read the draft of paper-2016-006, which is the same decay but using the model-independent approach. Marcel: it's worth reading both drafts to get a complete picture.
Cheers,
Patrick
I have questions on the presentation of the results in papers 2016-006 and 2016-007: In an ideal world these would have been a single paper. We understand this won't happen as selections differ (why?), but we encourage the proponents of both papers to take the best suggestions for wording of the very similar parts. Also, while 007 refers to 006, the converse is not true but should be. Also, both papers should have a statement that the results cannot be combined.
On 26/02/16 14:53, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
here are my comments on the gamma paper.
Cheers,
Patrick
Physics: Your fit in Fig.2 indicates that the part reco background is 100% of the data below 5000 MeV. That seems unlikely. There must be B->DKnpi decays kicking in. By eye the contribution from comb background could easily be half of what you fit. In the systematics it seems you vary within stat uncertainties, which is 10% of this background. What happens if you vary it within 50%?
Text: L.3: how many current flavour physics experiments are there? L.12: "more than 10" could be anything. Why not quote 11 degrees from 1406.6311 ? And why not give the central values for B factories and LHCb? L.15: a sentence explaining why global fits get 2 degrees would be useful. In particular on what they assume. L.35: ratio r_B of interfering amplitudes ... (connects with next sentence) L.36: expected -> measured L.48: {\cal H} is undefined, but probably OK Eq.2: the star is unusual. Is that intentional? L.55: Suddenly a "we" L.58: no colon L.62: this sentence is mysterious without reading [10]. Can you explain briefly why? L.69: Section 2 (start of paragraph) L.83: say the polarity can be reversed. You'll need it later. L.123: pt is already defined, but OK. L.124: flight distance significance wrt what? The PV or the origin vertex (B or D)? How do you define this significance? d/err? That's not a significance. L.134: ADS/GLW is undefined. Explain how that paper differs from the present. L.151: We understand you use log for convenience, but are surprised it improves the BDT. A BDT is a set of splits. Any monotonous transformation would leave that unchanged. L.167: A reference here would be useful. Or at least the argument of l.364 L.221: the one -> that L.222: published by LHCb is not needed here Eq.7 and 8: model, mass and cand should be in roman.
Table 1: the yields of some components are wrong by several orders of magnitude, notably Bs->DK*. Have factors of ten been suppressed?
L.266-269: add charges to all particles where applicable. L.271: remove space before footnote L.394-413: add charges to all particles where applicable. L.404: why [51] and not [21]? Fig.6-10: amazingly you managed to write this paper without ever using GGSZ. So remove it here too. L.458: any comment on how to combine the two results? Or not to combine them? The papers will come out at the same time, so both should say something. [6] is also by the CKMfitter group (though arxiv doesn't say so). [8,9] why not in chronological order? [34] Belle collaboration [39,42,47] seem to have unsplittable journal refs. Is your LHCb.bst old?
On 26/02/16 13:10, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Wrong cds address in previous email https://cds.cern.ch/record/213404 must be 2134041
Bfys Meeting Friday 4 March at 9:30 in N328 and Vidyo
9:30 - 9:55 Staff meeting (permanent staff only)
10:00 - 10:45 "B(s) -> mumu normalization and B meson fragmentation fraction ratio fs/fd" by Jennifer Zonneveld 10:45 - 11:30 "Introduction and discussion of LHCb-PAPER-2016-007" by ??? https://cds.cern.ch/record/2134041 Deadline: 9-Mar-2016
Material (and als Vidyo link) at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=368 protected by PIN 1328.
Direct Vidyo link on the Nikhef Indico (above) equivalent to: http://vidyoportal.cern.ch/flex.html?roomdirect.html&key=LCjLrDFb9I8L7Eb...
protected by PIN 1328.Best regards, Tjeerd _______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Patrick Koppenburg -
Tjeerd Ketel