[Bfys-physics] Fwd: LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment)
Hi everyone,
We have received comments on our comments.
Looking through it quickly, about the large physics points: it seems that they indeed optimise S/(S+B) on MC, which is their “expected”. They gather the TIS efficiency from Monte Carlo. I’m surprised by their very low error on the trigger efficiency in the first place (0.1%). I wonder how they assign a systematic to this TIS thing…
In the light of the winter conference deadlines, it would be nice to get back to them as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have anything else to add. I’ll try to send an answer at the end of tomorrow, or on Saturday if requested.
Good night, Laurent
Begin forwarded message:
From: CERN Document Server Submission Engine cds.support@cern.ch Subject: LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment) Date: 7 March 2018 at 18:30:02 GMT+1 To: laurent.dufour@cern.ch
Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-007) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001 (entitled: 'Observation of the decay $\Lambda^0_b \to \Lambda_c^+ p \bar{p} \pi^-$') has itself been commented on by Mengzhen Wang [CERN - EP/ULB] (mengzhen.wang@cern.ch).
This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2307522
Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team
Hi Laurent,
On 08/03/18 23:29, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Hi everyone,
We have received comments on our comments.
Looking through it quickly, about the large physics points: it seems that they indeed optimise S/(S+B) on MC, which is their “expected”.
... based on the peak they see before the BDT is applied. But they optimise using MC for signal, so that's at least not biasing. Please ask them to clarify this in the paper.
They gather the TIS efficiency from Monte Carlo. I’m surprised by their very low error on the trigger efficiency in the first place (0.1%). I wonder how they assign a systematic to this TIS thing…
Yes, please ask. Their just reply "Based on MC.", which is really not taking the question seriously.
Cheers,
Patrick
In the light of the winter conference deadlines, it would be nice to get back to them as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have anything else to add. I’ll try to send an answer at the end of tomorrow, or on Saturday if requested.
Good night, Laurent
Begin forwarded message:
From: CERN Document Server Submission Engine cds.support@cern.ch Subject: LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment) Date: 7 March 2018 at 18:30:02 GMT+1 To: laurent.dufour@cern.ch
Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-007) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001 (entitled: 'Observation of the decay $\Lambda^0_b \to \Lambda_c^+ p \bar{p} \pi^-$') has itself been commented on by Mengzhen Wang [CERN - EP/ULB] (mengzhen.wang@cern.ch).
This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2307522
Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi all,
Done. I contacted Maarten to gather more comments on the comments (also, the L0TIS thing came from Maarten). As the analysis has to move forward quickly now, I have submitted comments on the comments so far.
It will soon become available at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2307861.
Thanks, Laurent
On 09 Mar 2018, at 06:55, Patrick Koppenburg patrick.koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:
Hi Laurent,
On 08/03/18 23:29, Laurent Dufour wrote:
Hi everyone,
We have received comments on our comments.
Looking through it quickly, about the large physics points: it seems that they indeed optimise S/(S+B) on MC, which is their “expected”.
... based on the peak they see before the BDT is applied. But they optimise using MC for signal, so that's at least not biasing. Please ask them to clarify this in the paper.
They gather the TIS efficiency from Monte Carlo. I’m surprised by their very low error on the trigger efficiency in the first place (0.1%). I wonder how they assign a systematic to this TIS thing…
Yes, please ask. Their just reply "Based on MC.", which is really not taking the question seriously.
Cheers,
Patrick
In the light of the winter conference deadlines, it would be nice to get back to them as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have anything else to add. I’ll try to send an answer at the end of tomorrow, or on Saturday if requested.
Good night, Laurent
Begin forwarded message:
From: CERN Document Server Submission Engine cds.support@cern.ch Subject: LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014 (a comment has been made on your comment) Date: 7 March 2018 at 18:30:02 GMT+1 To: laurent.dufour@cern.ch
Dear LHCb Colleague, The comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-007) that you made on LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001 (entitled: 'Observation of the decay $\Lambda^0_b \to \Lambda_c^+ p \bar{p} \pi^-$') has itself been commented on by Mengzhen Wang [CERN - EP/ULB] (mengzhen.wang@cern.ch).
This new comment (LHCB-PAPER-2018-005-001-COMMENT-014) may be seen at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2307522
Best regards, The CERN Document Server Server support Team
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.nikhef.nl/~pkoppenb/#contact
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Laurent Dufour -
Patrick Koppenburg