Dear all,
We have a new paper for comments before 2 September. I propose to discuss it at Friday morning 29 August. It would be nice to have a volunteer to introduce this paper and to collect the comments.
Best regards, Tjeerd
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:41:36 +0000 From: Rolf Oldeman rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" lhcb-general@cern.ch Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2014-052, Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Paul Seyfert, Marcin Chrzaszcz Reviewers : Benoit Viaud (chair), Matteo Rama EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Frederic Machefert Analysis note : ANA-2014-005 Deadline : 02-Sep-2014 e-group : lhcb-paper-2014-052-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1750727 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Tau_LFV_3fb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Dublin, Ireland LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France PNPI, Gatchina, Russia Bristol, United Kingdom 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 reviewers 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_... rd/default.html
Regards, Rolf Oldeman
Hi all,
I have no comments on this paper as I already went through an iteration prior to the 1st circulation. The only thing that is left (and which the proponents did not explain) is the sentence in lines 184-186. This sounds like KKpi coming via phi is a bad thing, while they normalise explicitly to phi(mumu)pi. So the phi is what they want. Does anyone understand what they mean?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 21/08/14 10:19, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:
Dear all,
We have a new paper for comments before 2 September. I propose to discuss it at Friday morning 29 August. It would be nice to have a volunteer to introduce this paper and to collect the comments. Best regards, Tjeerd
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:41:36 +0000 From: Rolf Oldeman rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" lhcb-general@cern.ch Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2014-052, Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Paul Seyfert, Marcin Chrzaszcz Reviewers : Benoit Viaud (chair), Matteo Rama EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Frederic Machefert Analysis note : ANA-2014-005 Deadline : 02-Sep-2014 e-group : lhcb-paper-2014-052-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1750727 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Tau_LFV_3fb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Dublin, Ireland LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France PNPI, Gatchina, Russia Bristol, United Kingdom 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 reviewers 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_...
rd/default.html
Regards, Rolf Oldeman
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi Patrick,
I don't know if your problem is the same as mine...
1) L.183 "BR(Ds->Phi(K+K-)pi) is taken from the BaBar amplitude analysis [25], which considers only the Phi->K+K- resonant part of the Ds decay."
Is the second half of the sentence indeed needed? BR(Ds->Phi(K+K-)pi) already suggests that only the resonant part is implied, so I would skip that second bit.
2) L.184 "This is motivated by the negligible contribution of non-resonant Ds->mumupi events seen in the data."
The question is, what do they refer to with "This" ?? I think they mean with "This" the D-tour of calculating BR(Ds->mumupi) via BR(Ds->Phi(K+K-)pi) . If so, they could rephrase as:
"The estimate of BR(Ds->mumupi) using BR(Ds->Phi(K+K-)pi) is more precise than the direct measurement of BR(Ds->mumupi)."
?
Cheers, Niels
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
I have no comments on this paper as I already went through an iteration prior to the 1st circulation. The only thing that is left (and which the proponents did not explain) is the sentence in lines 184-186. This sounds like KKpi coming via phi is a bad thing, while they normalise explicitly to phi(mumu)pi. So the phi is what they want. Does anyone understand what they mean?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 21/08/14 10:19, Tjeerd Ketel wrote: Dear all,
We have a new paper for comments before 2 September. I propose to discuss it at Friday morning 29 August. It would be nice to have a volunteer to introduce this paper and to collect the comments. Best regards, Tjeerd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:41:36 +0000 From: Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch> To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.ch> Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2014-052, Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$ Dear Colleagues, A paper is available for your comments: Title : Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$ Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Paul Seyfert, Marcin Chrzaszcz Reviewers : Benoit Viaud (chair), Matteo Rama EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Frederic Machefert Analysis note : ANA-2014-005 Deadline : 02-Sep-2014 e-group : lhcb-paper-2014-052-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1750727 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Tau_LFV_3fb The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Dublin, Ireland LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France PNPI, Gatchina, Russia Bristol, United Kingdom 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 reviewers 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_boa rd/default.html Regards, Rolf Oldeman
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
On 28/08/14 16:39, Niels Tuning wrote:
Hi Patrick,
I don't know if your problem is the same as mine...
- L.183 "BR(Ds->Phi(K+K-)pi) is taken from the BaBar amplitude
analysis [25], which considers only the Phi->K+K- resonant part of the Ds decay."
Is the second half of the sentence indeed needed? BR(Ds->Phi(K+K-)pi) already suggests that only the resonant part is implied, so I would skip that second bit.
- L.184 "This is motivated by the negligible contribution of
non-resonant Ds->mumupi events seen in the data."
The question is, what do they refer to with "This" ?? I think they mean with "This" the D-tour of calculating BR(Ds->mumupi) via BR(Ds->Phi(K+K-)pi) . If so, they could rephrase as:
"The estimate of BR(Ds->mumupi) using BR(Ds->Phi(K+K-)pi) is more precise than the direct measurement of BR(Ds->mumupi)."
that would already help. But still, they do not care about Ds->mumupi; they normalise to Ds->Phi(mumu)pi, i.e. in the phi mass window... I think.
Cheers,
Patrick
?
Cheers, Niels
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
I have no comments on this paper as I already went through an iteration prior to the 1st circulation. The only thing that is left (and which the proponents did not explain) is the sentence in lines 184-186. This sounds like KKpi coming via phi is a bad thing, while they normalise explicitly to phi(mumu)pi. So the phi is what they want. Does anyone understand what they mean?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 21/08/14 10:19, Tjeerd Ketel wrote: Dear all,
We have a new paper for comments before 2 September. I propose to discuss it at Friday morning 29 August. It would be nice to have a volunteer to introduce this paper and to collect the comments. Best regards, Tjeerd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:41:36 +0000 From: Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch> To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)"lhcb-general@cern.ch Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2014-052, Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$
Dear Colleagues, A paper is available for your comments: Title : Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to\mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Paul Seyfert, Marcin Chrzaszcz Reviewers : Benoit Viaud (chair), Matteo Rama EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Frederic Machefert Analysis note : ANA-2014-005 Deadline : 02-Sep-2014 e-group : lhcb-paper-2014-052-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1750727 Authors : LHCb Twiki: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Tau_LFV_3fb
The following institutes are requested to make institutionalcomments: Dublin, Ireland LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France PNPI, Gatchina, Russia Bristol, United Kingdom EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland NIKHEF, Netherlands
Please send any comments via the CDS system. It is theresponsibility of the contact authors to provide replies on all comments made. Subsequent modification to the publication are made in consultation with the reviewers 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 forcomments via the EB web-page, by clicking on Current Drafts.
http://lhcb.web.cern.ch/lhcb/lhcb_page/collaboration/organization/editorial_... rd/default.html
Regards, Rolf Oldeman
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi Gerco,
My comments on this paper. Btw, just as Patrick I also do not understand l.184-185. It is a valid question to ask.
General: Maybe I missed it, but I do not fully understand why the analysis is split in 7 and 8 TeV. In particular concerning the choice of the binning and multivariate optimisation.
Specific: -l.2: “An observation of …”. That is better than “Any observation”. You actually say later that E-40 is still within the SM (w/ massive nu). -l.14: Write “\taum” instead of “tau”. To be consistent with the rest of the text. -l.13-25: This paragraph contains a lot of “LHCb”. By the end the reader surely knows who did the measurement. Suggest to remove the occurrences in l.18 and l.21. -l.18: Add comma after CL. -l.22: remove hyphen in cross section. Although the EB guidelines may give another suggestion, this word is not hyphenised in any dictionary (included those suggested by the EB). -l.25: Add “at 7 TeV.” at the end of this sentence. -l.31+94: “expected mass resolution”. This sounds a bit like we are still trying to understand our detector. But in reality, we should talk about the mass resolution of our detector (which of course depends on the momenta of the final state particles and the Q-value). Not about mass resolution of a specific decay. Suggest “intrinsic mass resolution” or similar. -l.112: "An ensemble selected … is used.” This is too much information in one sentence. Better to explain a little bit more. Ensemble selection is new to me. If you keep using it like this, please add a hyphen “ensemble-selected”. -l.127+134: You say that the PDF is calibrated. But which PDF? This is not mentioned before. Don’t you mean that the classifiers are calibrated such that they return a probability or likelihood? In that case the mentioning of likelihood in l.136 also makes sense (now it does not). -l.152: why meson. Shouldn’t it be heavy hadron instead, to not exclude baryons? -l.154: “There is a large number of …”. Not are. Number is singular! -l.217: “estimates”. Not estimations. -l.230: “In summary, the previous LHCb limits …” -l.231: Remove “3.0 fb-1 of”. Jargon. -l.232: “The presented limits” -l.233: “B-factories”. B in italic. -l.233: allow -> give -l.234: Remove “to be placed”
Cheers Jeroen
On 21 Aug, 2014, at 10:19 am, Tjeerd Ketel <tjeerd@nikhef.nlmailto:tjeerd@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Dear all,
We have a new paper for comments before 2 September. I propose to discuss it at Friday morning 29 August. It would be nice to have a volunteer to introduce this paper and to collect the comments.
Best regards, Tjeerd
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:41:36 +0000 From: Rolf Oldeman <rudolf.oldeman@cern.chmailto:rudolf.oldeman@cern.ch> To: "lhcb-general (LHCb General mailing list)" <lhcb-general@cern.chmailto:lhcb-general@cern.ch> Subject: First circulation of publication draft for PAPER-2014-052, Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$
Dear Colleagues,
A paper is available for your comments:
Title : Search for the lepton flavour violating decay $\tau^-\to \mu^-\mu^+\mu^-$
Journal : JHEP Contact authors : Paul Seyfert, Marcin Chrzaszcz Reviewers : Benoit Viaud (chair), Matteo Rama EB reviewer : Diego Tonelli EB readers : Hassan Jawahery, Frederic Machefert Analysis note : ANA-2014-005 Deadline : 02-Sep-2014 e-group : lhcb-paper-2014-052-reviewers Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/1750727 Authors : LHCb Twiki : https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/Tau_LFV_3fb
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Dublin, Ireland LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France PNPI, Gatchina, Russia Bristol, United Kingdom 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 reviewers 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_... rd/default.html
Regards, Rolf Oldeman
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
-
Jeroen Van Tilburg -
Niels Tuning -
Patrick Koppenburg -
Tjeerd Ketel