Hallo Jacco,

Here are my comments.

Cheers & thanks, Niels

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L.12 Please remove 'for the first time', because it suggests that the other measurements that you list, were not first measurements.

L.85 You train two separate BDT's. Please make clear in the paper that you use a different optimal cut for each BDT. The reader also needs to be able to asses the agreement between the signal yeilds for both samples, and therefore you should mention the value of the selection efficiency for both BDTs.

L.104 Did you consider to update the Bc->JpsiK+ measurement? (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.6723.pdf). You might even observe ~10 Bc->Psi(2S)K+ events?

Figs. Please also prepare a plot with _all_ Bc->Jpsipi+ candidates. That will eb very useful for talks. (Then you can decide whether you want to place that in supplementary material, or whether you put the split plots in the supp.material, and the combined plot in the body of the paper.)

L.156 Your statements that you "don't support the theoretical calculations", and "predictions .. are consistent" are too strong, given the uncertainties of the various predictions. Could you prepare a table with predictions and errors, for the supplementary material? (Related to this comment, do you know what changed in arXiv.1209.5859 changing their prediction from 0.42 of before the LHCb measurement, to 0.26 after our publication?)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 29 May 2015, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

Dear all,

Please, send your comments on this paper to Jacco by a Cc before Thursday next week (4 June). He will combine the comments and circulate it before uploading them to CDS.

The protected presentation of today is at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=173 on which you have to login with your nikhef account.

Best regards, Tjeerd

On Wed, 27 May 2015, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

...

Dear colleagues,

Bfys Meeting Friday 29 May at 10:00 in N328 and Vidyo

10:00 - 11:00 Discussion of LHCb-Paper-2015-024 by Jacco de Vries: "Measurement of the branching fraction ratio of Bc+ to psi(2S) pi+ with respect to Bc+ to J/psi pi+" Deadline : 8-Jun-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2018187

Vidyo link in Nikhef Bfys Meeting (at Institutes->Nikhef of Friday 24 October 2014) https://indico.cern.ch/event/348856/ protected by PIN 1328.

Material (and also Vidyo link) at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=173

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

--

Dear all,

I’ve gathered the comments by Niels, Patrick and myself for LHCb-PAPER-2015-024. I will send them to CDS on Sunday evening 07 Jun.

Please let me know if you want to see something rephrased / changed.

Thanks, Jacco

== Comments on LHCb-PAPER-2015-024-001 by Nikhef.

Physics: L.85 You train two separate BDT's. Please make clear in the paper that you use a different optimal cut for each BDT. The reader also needs to be able to asses the agreement between the signal yields for both samples, and therefore you should mention the value of the selection efficiency for both BDTs. L.95: It is not clear whether you do one fit, or 8 (as you have 8 plots), or any number in between. Please specify. L.127: This is the largest systematic uncertainty. What does it test? Your part reco background is separated from the signal. Removing its region from the fit will reduce the lever-arm for the combinatorial background, and so it's the modelling of that which you check. L.135-7: The IP is generally well reproduced in the latest MC. Why not here?

General: - We don't think you need to show all fits for 2011 and 2012, and BDT1 and BDT2. What is needed in any case is one plot for both channels, which can be shown at conferences. We suggest to put these 2 plots in the paper and move the 8 plots to additional material. - Please also prepare a plot with _all_ Bc->Jpsipi+ candidates. That will be very useful for talks. (Then you can decide whether you want to place that in supplementary material, or whether you put the split plots in the supp.material, and the combined plot in the body of the paper.) - L.156 Your statements that you "don't support the theoretical calculations", and "predictions .. are consistent" are too strong, given the uncertainties of the various predictions. Could you prepare a table with predictions and errors, for the supplementary material? (Related to this comment, do you know what changed in arXiv.1209.5859 changing their prediction from 0.42 of before the LHCb measurement, to 0.26 after our publication?) - A brief note on what changed since the 2011 result would be useful. - Journal: That seems to have the format for PRD(RC). Is that meant?

Detailed comments: Title : with respect to -> relative to (also in abstract) Abstract : with respect to that of the -> relative to that of. with the previous LHCb. This measurement shows that the Next... Abstract : propose to split up the first sentence. L.1-17: Needs a revision for English language. I have too many corrections. L.12 Please remove 'for the first time', because it suggests that the other measurements that you list, were not first measurements. L.13: pt and y are undefined L.20: Several theoretical predictions of this ratio based on different effective models exist, and vary between 0.07 and 0.29. L.23: statistics -> data samples (and many other places) L.46: 'good' --> 'high' L.51: the PV? any PV or the one the dimuon points to? L.52-57 needs a re-write. We fail to understand what information is conveyed by the sentence in L.57-58. L.72: (6346,6444) -> [6346,6444]. Many other places too. L.76: put BDT1 and BDT2 in roman. L.82: ; -> . L.84: Remove this sentence. It's irrelevant. L.87: 'used for' --> 'applied to' L.91: where the pi0 L.92: Cabibbo-suppressed decay L.101: remove "-" Table 1: This table gives too much irrelevant detail. Put the needed yields in the text. BTW, why is that Table here? Fig.1: Error bars -> Points with error bars Table 2: This information is also not relevant to the reader. L.104 Did you consider to update the Bc->JpsiK+ measurement? (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.6723.pdf). You might even observe ~10 Bc->Psi(2S)K+ events? L. 114-117: Propose to split up this sentence L.123: The \Bc invariant mass is modelled by a kernel estimation convolved with a Gaussian, as determined from simulation. L.149: number of signal events -> signal yield. [33], [39] Use template.

On 03 Jun 2015, at 18:02 , Jacco de Vries jdevries@nikhef.nl wrote:

Dear all,

Please send in any comments you have on the paper (see below) to me. I will collect and circulate tomorrow evening, and submit our comments on Sunday.

Cheers, Jacco

...

On 29 May 2015, at 11:04 , Tjeerd Ketel tjeerd@nikhef.nl wrote:

Dear all,

Please, send your comments on this paper to Jacco by a Cc before Thursday next week (4 June). He will combine the comments and circulate it before uploading them to CDS.

The protected presentation of today is at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=173 on which you have to login with your nikhef account.

Best regards, Tjeerd

On Wed, 27 May 2015, Tjeerd Ketel wrote:

...

Dear colleagues,

Bfys Meeting Friday 29 May at 10:00 in N328 and Vidyo

10:00 - 11:00 Discussion of LHCb-Paper-2015-024 by Jacco de Vries: "Measurement of the branching fraction ratio of Bc+ to psi(2S) pi+ with respect to Bc+ to J/psi pi+" Deadline : 8-Jun-2015 Link : https://cds.cern.ch/record/2018187

Vidyo link in Nikhef Bfys Meeting (at Institutes->Nikhef of Friday 24 October 2014) https://indico.cern.ch/event/348856/ protected by PIN 1328.

Material (and also Vidyo link) at https://indico.nikhef.nl/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=173

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

---

Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics