Hi all,
We have two papers on the same analysis assigned to us:
Title : Observation of exotic $J/\psi \phi$ structures from amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRL Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-018-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
and
Title : Amplitude analysis of $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-019-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Cheers,
Patrick
Hi,
I have written down some comments on the PRL paper. Mostly textual. Many points apply to the PRD paper as well. We should ask to also update the PRD paper following these comments.
Cheers Jeroen
- Word count is missing. - throughout the text use smaller spacing between the numbers and the units. Like this “10\mev”. - Tables and figures: place the figures either at the bottom or top of the page. Write all particle symbols in italics. - Fig. 2 should be placed before Fig. 1. - add article in title: “from an amplitude analysis”
- abstract line 1: remove J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− here. This is not relevant for the abstract. If you insist to keep it change to "…B+ → J/ψφK+ decay, with J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− is performed…” - abstract line 3: write out in full $\sqrt{s}=7\tev$ and $8\tev$ - abstract line 4: Split sentence “...into $\phi\Kp$. Instead, four $\jpsi\phi$…" - abstract line 8: “much larger than,” - abstract: write out \sigma as “standard deviations” - l.3: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”. Here you could define \sigma - l.7: add comma after “states [3-9]” - l.9: No new paragraph and remove “However”. - l.12: add commas around “however” - l.16: Give the reference for CMS (presumably it is the same as [22]). - l.16: What does this mean “a mass which is higher by 3.2\sigma”? This does not tell me anything. - l.14-19: These secondary peaks seem to have no correlation with each other; they are at different masses. So what is the use of this paragraph? Please put this paragraph in a bit of context. For instance, it would already help to add a sentence at the start of this paragraph which says something like “Additional resonance structures in the \jpsi\Pphi spectrum have also been seen, albeit at different masses." - l.38: No new paragraph. - l.40: The cms energies are not a range. write: "7 and 8\tev" - l.48: Change "The non-φ B+ background” to "The non-resonant $\Bp\to\jpsi\Kp\Km\Kp$ background" - l.54: Suggest to shorten to "where θ is the helicity angle [30–32], and ∆φ is the angle between the decay planes of the two particles" - l.56: as -> by - l.61: helicity angle. - l.67: Monte Carlo events mentioned for the first time. Add the standard references. - l.66-68: This sentence is impossible to understand. All you do is determine the normalisation per event using MC. Change this sentence into something like: “The 6D efficiency corrections are obtained from simulation [refs].” If you want you could add “...obtained on an event-by-event basis from..”. - l.72: use long dash (minus symbol, not a hyphen) in the given range. - l.75: use semicolon after “free" - l.76: comma before which. - l.77: comma before since. - l.78: no hyphen in "S wave” - Fig.1: It is not defined what (K*s) means. Remove it. - l.84-86: The explanation of the quantum labels should come after the 1st reference to the figure (i.e. on l.73). - l.87: With such a low probability it is really not important to give details on how the p-value was obtained. Shorten this to: “free parameters and the $p$-value is less than 10^{-7}$. - l.87: $p$-value - l.105-106: "p-value of chi2 value” is not clear; should be “p-value obtained from the chi2 value…”. Also (71.5/68 bins) is not clear or correct, since you need to subtract the number of fit parameters. Suggest to shorten to: “The $p$-value is $22%$, where ..." - l.110: "The systematic errors [27] sum in quadrature the observed changes in the fit results” is not proper grammar. Suggest “The systematic uncertainties [27] are obtained from the sum in quadrature of the observed changes in the fit results: - l.117: No new paragraph. - l.117-118: place commas around “after… the fit” - l.119-121: the clause “with numbers of … parameters)” strikes me as details and makes the sentence way too long. Suggest to remove it. - Fig.2: Fix the overlapping particle names (and make them italic). Light green is not well visible on screen; choose a different color. The JP numbers below the x-axis are badly aligned; it is impossible to see to which resonances they belong. - Table 2: why abbreviate F.F.? Just call it fraction in the table (the title above already tell me that this is “Fit results”). - Table 2, 2nd line caption: remove “given” - Table 2: Write units between square brackets. E.g. M0 [MeV]. - Table 2: Why give the K resonance results? Most of them are no real improvement concerning the mass and width. Only K(1830), but this is something that you can mention in the text. Suggest to leave the K resonance part for PRD. - Table 2: write out “average”. - l.130: hyphenate “near-threshold” - l.138: It would be good to explicitly say that this result supersedes the previous one. - l.139: remove “in an unpublished analysis”. This is a repetition of the introduction. - l.144: no hypen in “phase space” - l.148: colon after resonances - l.160: no hyphen in “form factor” - l.179: abbreviate to “6D” - Fig.3: Make the legend larger (it is easy: make the marker smaller and move LHCb to the top left of the plot). - Justification is too long (only 50 words allowed by PRL).
On 18 May, 2016, at 22:34 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.chmailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
We have two papers on the same analysis assigned to us:
Title : Observation of exotic $J/\psi \phi$ structures from amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRL Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-018-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
and
Title : Amplitude analysis of $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-019-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Cheers,
Patrick
-- ======================================================================== Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
_______________________________________________ Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nlmailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi all,
I will collect and combine the comments of the two papers. The deadline is on Monday, so please send me your comments by tomorrow evening.
Thanks, Elena
On 19 May 2016, at 13:36, Jeroen Van Tilburg jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch wrote:
Hi,
I have written down some comments on the PRL paper. Mostly textual. Many points apply to the PRD paper as well. We should ask to also update the PRD paper following these comments.
Cheers Jeroen
Word count is missing.
throughout the text use smaller spacing between the numbers and the units. Like this “10\mev”.
Tables and figures: place the figures either at the bottom or top of the page. Write all particle symbols in italics.
Fig. 2 should be placed before Fig. 1.
add article in title: “from an amplitude analysis”
abstract line 1: remove J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− here. This is not relevant for the abstract. If you insist to keep it change to "…B+ → J/ψφK+ decay, with J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− is performed…”
abstract line 3: write out in full $\sqrt{s}=7\tev$ and $8\tev$
abstract line 4: Split sentence “...into $\phi\Kp$. Instead, four $\jpsi\phi$…"
abstract line 8: “much larger than,”
abstract: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”
l.3: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”. Here you could define \sigma
l.7: add comma after “states [3-9]”
l.9: No new paragraph and remove “However”.
l.12: add commas around “however”
l.16: Give the reference for CMS (presumably it is the same as [22]).
l.16: What does this mean “a mass which is higher by 3.2\sigma”? This does not tell me anything.
l.14-19: These secondary peaks seem to have no correlation with each other; they are at different masses. So what is the use of this paragraph? Please put this paragraph in a bit of context. For instance, it would already help to add a sentence at the start of this paragraph which says something like “Additional resonance structures in the \jpsi\Pphi spectrum have also been seen, albeit at different masses."
l.38: No new paragraph.
l.40: The cms energies are not a range. write: "7 and 8\tev"
l.48: Change "The non-φ B+ background” to "The non-resonant $\Bp\to\jpsi\Kp\Km\Kp$ background"
l.54: Suggest to shorten to "where θ is the helicity angle [30–32], and ∆φ is the angle between the decay planes of the two particles"
l.56: as -> by
l.61: helicity angle.
l.67: Monte Carlo events mentioned for the first time. Add the standard references.
l.66-68: This sentence is impossible to understand. All you do is determine the normalisation per event using MC. Change this sentence into something like: “The 6D efficiency corrections are obtained from simulation [refs].” If you want you could add “...obtained on an event-by-event basis from..”.
l.72: use long dash (minus symbol, not a hyphen) in the given range.
l.75: use semicolon after “free"
l.76: comma before which.
l.77: comma before since.
l.78: no hyphen in "S wave”
Fig.1: It is not defined what (K*s) means. Remove it.
l.84-86: The explanation of the quantum labels should come after the 1st reference to the figure (i.e. on l.73).
l.87: With such a low probability it is really not important to give details on how the p-value was obtained. Shorten this to: “free parameters and the $p$-value is less than 10^{-7}$.
l.87: $p$-value
l.105-106: "p-value of chi2 value” is not clear; should be “p-value obtained from the chi2 value…”. Also (71.5/68 bins) is not clear or correct, since you need to subtract the number of fit parameters. Suggest to shorten to: “The $p$-value is $22%$, where ..."
l.110: "The systematic errors [27] sum in quadrature the observed changes in the fit results” is not proper grammar. Suggest “The systematic uncertainties [27] are obtained from the sum in quadrature of the observed changes in the fit results:
l.117: No new paragraph.
l.117-118: place commas around “after… the fit”
l.119-121: the clause “with numbers of … parameters)” strikes me as details and makes the sentence way too long. Suggest to remove it.
Fig.2: Fix the overlapping particle names (and make them italic). Light green is not well visible on screen; choose a different color. The JP numbers below the x-axis are badly aligned; it is impossible to see to which resonances they belong.
Table 2: why abbreviate F.F.? Just call it fraction in the table (the title above already tell me that this is “Fit results”).
Table 2, 2nd line caption: remove “given”
Table 2: Write units between square brackets. E.g. M0 [MeV].
Table 2: Why give the K resonance results? Most of them are no real improvement concerning the mass and width. Only K(1830), but this is something that you can mention in the text. Suggest to leave the K resonance part for PRD.
Table 2: write out “average”.
l.130: hyphenate “near-threshold”
l.138: It would be good to explicitly say that this result supersedes the previous one.
l.139: remove “in an unpublished analysis”. This is a repetition of the introduction.
l.144: no hypen in “phase space”
l.148: colon after resonances
l.160: no hyphen in “form factor”
l.179: abbreviate to “6D”
Fig.3: Make the legend larger (it is easy: make the marker smaller and move LHCb to the top left of the plot).
Justification is too long (only 50 words allowed by PRL).
On 18 May, 2016, at 22:34 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
We have two papers on the same analysis assigned to us:
Title : Observation of exotic $J/\psi \phi$ structures from amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRL Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-018-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
and
Title : Amplitude analysis of $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-019-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto: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
Hi all,
I will collect and combine the comments of the two papers. The deadline is on Monday, so please send me your comments by tomorrow evening.
Thanks, Elena
On 19 May 2016, at 13:36, Jeroen Van Tilburg jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch wrote:
Hi,
I have written down some comments on the PRL paper. Mostly textual. Many points apply to the PRD paper as well. We should ask to also update the PRD paper following these comments.
Cheers Jeroen
Word count is missing.
throughout the text use smaller spacing between the numbers and the units. Like this “10\mev”.
Tables and figures: place the figures either at the bottom or top of the page. Write all particle symbols in italics.
Fig. 2 should be placed before Fig. 1.
add article in title: “from an amplitude analysis”
abstract line 1: remove J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− here. This is not relevant for the abstract. If you insist to keep it change to "…B+ → J/ψφK+ decay, with J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− is performed…”
abstract line 3: write out in full $\sqrt{s}=7\tev$ and $8\tev$
abstract line 4: Split sentence “...into $\phi\Kp$. Instead, four $\jpsi\phi$…"
abstract line 8: “much larger than,”
abstract: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”
l.3: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”. Here you could define \sigma
l.7: add comma after “states [3-9]”
l.9: No new paragraph and remove “However”.
l.12: add commas around “however”
l.16: Give the reference for CMS (presumably it is the same as [22]).
l.16: What does this mean “a mass which is higher by 3.2\sigma”? This does not tell me anything.
l.14-19: These secondary peaks seem to have no correlation with each other; they are at different masses. So what is the use of this paragraph? Please put this paragraph in a bit of context. For instance, it would already help to add a sentence at the start of this paragraph which says something like “Additional resonance structures in the \jpsi\Pphi spectrum have also been seen, albeit at different masses."
l.38: No new paragraph.
l.40: The cms energies are not a range. write: "7 and 8\tev"
l.48: Change "The non-φ B+ background” to "The non-resonant $\Bp\to\jpsi\Kp\Km\Kp$ background"
l.54: Suggest to shorten to "where θ is the helicity angle [30–32], and ∆φ is the angle between the decay planes of the two particles"
l.56: as -> by
l.61: helicity angle.
l.67: Monte Carlo events mentioned for the first time. Add the standard references.
l.66-68: This sentence is impossible to understand. All you do is determine the normalisation per event using MC. Change this sentence into something like: “The 6D efficiency corrections are obtained from simulation [refs].” If you want you could add “...obtained on an event-by-event basis from..”.
l.72: use long dash (minus symbol, not a hyphen) in the given range.
l.75: use semicolon after “free"
l.76: comma before which.
l.77: comma before since.
l.78: no hyphen in "S wave”
Fig.1: It is not defined what (K*s) means. Remove it.
l.84-86: The explanation of the quantum labels should come after the 1st reference to the figure (i.e. on l.73).
l.87: With such a low probability it is really not important to give details on how the p-value was obtained. Shorten this to: “free parameters and the $p$-value is less than 10^{-7}$.
l.87: $p$-value
l.105-106: "p-value of chi2 value” is not clear; should be “p-value obtained from the chi2 value…”. Also (71.5/68 bins) is not clear or correct, since you need to subtract the number of fit parameters. Suggest to shorten to: “The $p$-value is $22%$, where ..."
l.110: "The systematic errors [27] sum in quadrature the observed changes in the fit results” is not proper grammar. Suggest “The systematic uncertainties [27] are obtained from the sum in quadrature of the observed changes in the fit results:
l.117: No new paragraph.
l.117-118: place commas around “after… the fit”
l.119-121: the clause “with numbers of … parameters)” strikes me as details and makes the sentence way too long. Suggest to remove it.
Fig.2: Fix the overlapping particle names (and make them italic). Light green is not well visible on screen; choose a different color. The JP numbers below the x-axis are badly aligned; it is impossible to see to which resonances they belong.
Table 2: why abbreviate F.F.? Just call it fraction in the table (the title above already tell me that this is “Fit results”).
Table 2, 2nd line caption: remove “given”
Table 2: Write units between square brackets. E.g. M0 [MeV].
Table 2: Why give the K resonance results? Most of them are no real improvement concerning the mass and width. Only K(1830), but this is something that you can mention in the text. Suggest to leave the K resonance part for PRD.
Table 2: write out “average”.
l.130: hyphenate “near-threshold”
l.138: It would be good to explicitly say that this result supersedes the previous one.
l.139: remove “in an unpublished analysis”. This is a repetition of the introduction.
l.144: no hypen in “phase space”
l.148: colon after resonances
l.160: no hyphen in “form factor”
l.179: abbreviate to “6D”
Fig.3: Make the legend larger (it is easy: make the marker smaller and move LHCb to the top left of the plot).
Justification is too long (only 50 words allowed by PRL).
On 18 May, 2016, at 22:34 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
We have two papers on the same analysis assigned to us:
Title : Observation of exotic $J/\psi \phi$ structures from amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRL Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-018-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
and
Title : Amplitude analysis of $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-019-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto: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
Hi Elena.
A few comments interleaved with Jeroen's. Most of my comment have been spotted by Jeroen, so I do not repeat.
On 27/05/16 11:58, Elena Dall'Occo wrote:
Hi all,
I will collect and combine the comments of the two papers. The deadline is on Monday, so please send me your comments by tomorrow evening.
Thanks, Elena
On 19 May 2016, at 13:36, Jeroen Van Tilburg <jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch mailto:jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi,
I have written down some comments on the PRL paper. Mostly textual. Many points apply to the PRD paper as well. We should ask to also update the PRD paper following these comments.
Cheers Jeroen
- Word count is missing.
- throughout the text use smaller spacing between the numbers and the
units. Like this “10\mev”.
- Tables and figures: place the figures either at the bottom or top
of the page. Write all particle symbols in italics.
- Fig. 2 should be placed before Fig. 1.
- add article in title: “from *an* amplitude analysis”
not necessarily. See "Constraints on the unitarity triangle angle γ from Dalitz plot analysis of B0 → DK+π– decays" paper 2015-059
- all ranges should be separated by -- and not -
- abstract line 1: remove J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− here. This is not
relevant for the abstract. If you insist to keep it change to "…B+ → J/ψφK+ decay, with J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− is performed…”
- abstract line 3: write out in full $\sqrt{s}=7\tev$ and $8\tev$
- abstract line 4: Split sentence “...into $\phi\Kp$. Instead, four
$\jpsi\phi$…"
- abstract line 8: “much larger *than*,”
- abstract: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”
- l.3: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”. Here you could
define \sigma
- l.7: add comma after “states [3-9]”
- l.9: No new paragraph and remove “However”.
- l.11: remove "(0.37/fb of data)", it's weird here and 1/fb is not a unit of data.
- l.12: add commas around “however”
- l.16: Give the reference for CMS (presumably it is the same as [22]).
- l.16: What does this mean “a mass which is higher by 3.2\sigma”?
This does not tell me anything.
- l.14-19: These secondary peaks seem to have no correlation with
each other; they are at different masses. So what is the use of this paragraph? Please put this paragraph in a bit of context. For instance, it would already help to add a sentence at the start of this paragraph which says something like “Additional resonance structures in the \jpsi\Pphi spectrum have also been seen, albeit at different masses."
L.25: naive -> one-dimensional
- l.38: No new paragraph.
- l.40: The cms energies are not a range. write: "7 and 8\tev"
- l.48: Change "The non-φ B+ background” to "The non-resonant
$\Bp\to\jpsi\Kp\Km\Kp$ background"
- l.54: Suggest to shorten to "where θ is the helicity angle [30–32],
and ∆φ is the angle between the decay planes of the two particles"
- l.56: as -> by
- l.61: helicity *angle*.
- l.65. beta is defined in the PRD but I cannot find its definition here.
- l.67: Monte Carlo events mentioned for the first time. Add the
standard references.
... and call it simulated events
- l.66-68: This sentence is impossible to understand. All you do is
determine the normalisation per event using MC. Change this sentence into something like: “The 6D efficiency corrections are obtained from simulation [refs].” If you want you could add “...obtained on an event-by-event basis from..”.
- l.72: use long dash (minus symbol, not a hyphen) in the given range.
- l.75: use semicolon after “free"
- l.76: comma before which.
- l.77: comma before since.
- l.78: no hyphen in "S wave”
- Fig.1: It is not defined what (K*s) means. Remove it.
why is Fig.1 before fig 2?
- l.84-86: The explanation of the quantum labels should come after
the 1st reference to the figure (i.e. on l.73).
- l.87: With such a low probability it is really not important to
give details on how the p-value was obtained. Shorten this to: “free parameters and the $p$-value is less than 10^{-7}$.
- l.87: $p$-value
- l.105-106: "p-value of chi2 value” is not clear; should be “p-value
obtained from the chi2 value…”. Also (71.5/68 bins) is not clear or correct, since you need to subtract the number of fit parameters. Suggest to shorten to: “The $p$-value is $22%$, where ..."
- l.110: "The systematic errors [27] sum in quadrature the observed
changes in the fit results” is not proper grammar. Suggest “The systematic uncertainties [27] are obtained from the sum in quadrature of the observed changes in the fit results:
... and generally replace error by uncertainty, except in "error bar"
- l.117: No new paragraph.
- l.117-118: place commas around “after… the fit”
- l.119-121: the clause “with numbers of … parameters)” strikes me as
details and makes the sentence way too long. Suggest to remove it.
- Fig.2: Fix the overlapping particle names (and make them italic).
Light green is not well visible on screen; choose a different color. The JP numbers below the x-axis are badly aligned; it is impossible to see to which resonances they belong.
Indeed. Vertical bars could help. I wonder if that fig is needed in the PRL.
- Table 2: why abbreviate F.F.? Just call it fraction in the table
(the title above already tell me that this is “Fit results”).
The alignment is unclear. It took me very long to figure out how to read it. Maybe making it larger with LHCb results on the left and external results on the right would be better.
- Table 2, 2nd line caption: remove “given”
- Table 2: Write units between square brackets. E.g. M0 [MeV].
- Table 2: Why give the K resonance results? Most of them are no real
improvement concerning the mass and width. Only K(1830), but this is something that you can mention in the text. Suggest to leave the K resonance part for PRD.
- Table 2: write out “average”.
- l.130: hyphenate “near-threshold”
- l.138: It would be good to explicitly say that this result
supersedes the previous one.
- l.139: remove “in an unpublished analysis”. This is a repetition of
the introduction.
- l.144: no hypen in “phase space”
- l.148: colon after resonances
L.153: That 1++ is not allowed for 0++ or 2++ resonances looks like a tautology. Explain what you mean.
- l.160: no hyphen in “form factor”
- l.179: abbreviate to “6D”
- Fig.3: Make the legend larger (it is easy: make the marker smaller
and move LHCb to the top left of the plot).
- Justification is too long (only 50 words allowed by PRL).
Cheers,
Patrick
On 18 May, 2016, at 22:34 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
We have two papers on the same analysis assigned to us:
Title : Observation of exotic $J/\psi \phi$ structures from amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRL Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-018-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
and
Title : Amplitude analysis of $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-019-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Hi again,
A few more for the PRD:
General comments to the PRL apply here too.
Tables 1 and 2 : statistics -> yield L.36: naive -> one-dimensional Fig. 4: "... corresponds to unity efficiency when averaged over phase-space" (1 over could be read as "1/...") Fig,7: ). By (dot missing) Fig,8 and following: The density... to the signal yield L.304: resonance ... has, or resonances ... have L.432: why the "?" ? Fig.22: it's hard to convince oneself that this fit is bad. Do you have other projections to show?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 27/05/16 22:00, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi Elena.
A few comments interleaved with Jeroen's. Most of my comment have been spotted by Jeroen, so I do not repeat.
On 27/05/16 11:58, Elena Dall'Occo wrote:
Hi all,
I will collect and combine the comments of the two papers. The deadline is on Monday, so please send me your comments by tomorrow evening.
Thanks, Elena
On 19 May 2016, at 13:36, Jeroen Van Tilburg <jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch mailto:jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi,
I have written down some comments on the PRL paper. Mostly textual. Many points apply to the PRD paper as well. We should ask to also update the PRD paper following these comments.
Cheers Jeroen
- Word count is missing.
- throughout the text use smaller spacing between the numbers and
the units. Like this “10\mev”.
- Tables and figures: place the figures either at the bottom or top
of the page. Write all particle symbols in italics.
- Fig. 2 should be placed before Fig. 1.
- add article in title: “from *an* amplitude analysis”
not necessarily. See "Constraints on the unitarity triangle angle γ from Dalitz plot analysis of B0 → DK+π– decays" paper 2015-059
- all ranges should be separated by -- and not -
- abstract line 1: remove J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− here. This is not
relevant for the abstract. If you insist to keep it change to "…B+ → J/ψφK+ decay, with J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− is performed…”
- abstract line 3: write out in full $\sqrt{s}=7\tev$ and $8\tev$
- abstract line 4: Split sentence “...into $\phi\Kp$. Instead, four
$\jpsi\phi$…"
- abstract line 8: “much larger *than*,”
- abstract: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”
- l.3: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”. Here you could
define \sigma
- l.7: add comma after “states [3-9]”
- l.9: No new paragraph and remove “However”.
- l.11: remove "(0.37/fb of data)", it's weird here and 1/fb is not a
unit of data.
- l.12: add commas around “however”
- l.16: Give the reference for CMS (presumably it is the same as [22]).
- l.16: What does this mean “a mass which is higher by 3.2\sigma”?
This does not tell me anything.
- l.14-19: These secondary peaks seem to have no correlation with
each other; they are at different masses. So what is the use of this paragraph? Please put this paragraph in a bit of context. For instance, it would already help to add a sentence at the start of this paragraph which says something like “Additional resonance structures in the \jpsi\Pphi spectrum have also been seen, albeit at different masses."
L.25: naive -> one-dimensional
- l.38: No new paragraph.
- l.40: The cms energies are not a range. write: "7 and 8\tev"
- l.48: Change "The non-φ B+ background” to "The non-resonant
$\Bp\to\jpsi\Kp\Km\Kp$ background"
- l.54: Suggest to shorten to "where θ is the helicity
angle [30–32], and ∆φ is the angle between the decay planes of the two particles"
- l.56: as -> by
- l.61: helicity *angle*.
- l.65. beta is defined in the PRD but I cannot find its definition here.
- l.67: Monte Carlo events mentioned for the first time. Add the
standard references.
... and call it simulated events
- l.66-68: This sentence is impossible to understand. All you do is
determine the normalisation per event using MC. Change this sentence into something like: “The 6D efficiency corrections are obtained from simulation [refs].” If you want you could add “...obtained on an event-by-event basis from..”.
- l.72: use long dash (minus symbol, not a hyphen) in the given range.
- l.75: use semicolon after “free"
- l.76: comma before which.
- l.77: comma before since.
- l.78: no hyphen in "S wave”
- Fig.1: It is not defined what (K*s) means. Remove it.
why is Fig.1 before fig 2?
- l.84-86: The explanation of the quantum labels should come after
the 1st reference to the figure (i.e. on l.73).
- l.87: With such a low probability it is really not important to
give details on how the p-value was obtained. Shorten this to: “free parameters and the $p$-value is less than 10^{-7}$.
- l.87: $p$-value
- l.105-106: "p-value of chi2 value” is not clear; should be
“p-value obtained from the chi2 value…”. Also (71.5/68 bins) is not clear or correct, since you need to subtract the number of fit parameters. Suggest to shorten to: “The $p$-value is $22%$, where ..."
- l.110: "The systematic errors [27] sum in quadrature the observed
changes in the fit results” is not proper grammar. Suggest “The systematic uncertainties [27] are obtained from the sum in quadrature of the observed changes in the fit results:
... and generally replace error by uncertainty, except in "error bar"
- l.117: No new paragraph.
- l.117-118: place commas around “after… the fit”
- l.119-121: the clause “with numbers of … parameters)” strikes me
as details and makes the sentence way too long. Suggest to remove it.
- Fig.2: Fix the overlapping particle names (and make them italic).
Light green is not well visible on screen; choose a different color. The JP numbers below the x-axis are badly aligned; it is impossible to see to which resonances they belong.
Indeed. Vertical bars could help. I wonder if that fig is needed in the PRL.
- Table 2: why abbreviate F.F.? Just call it fraction in the table
(the title above already tell me that this is “Fit results”).
The alignment is unclear. It took me very long to figure out how to read it. Maybe making it larger with LHCb results on the left and external results on the right would be better.
- Table 2, 2nd line caption: remove “given”
- Table 2: Write units between square brackets. E.g. M0 [MeV].
- Table 2: Why give the K resonance results? Most of them are no
real improvement concerning the mass and width. Only K(1830), but this is something that you can mention in the text. Suggest to leave the K resonance part for PRD.
- Table 2: write out “average”.
- l.130: hyphenate “near-threshold”
- l.138: It would be good to explicitly say that this result
supersedes the previous one.
- l.139: remove “in an unpublished analysis”. This is a repetition
of the introduction.
- l.144: no hypen in “phase space”
- l.148: colon after resonances
L.153: That 1++ is not allowed for 0++ or 2++ resonances looks like a tautology. Explain what you mean.
- l.160: no hyphen in “form factor”
- l.179: abbreviate to “6D”
- Fig.3: Make the legend larger (it is easy: make the marker smaller
and move LHCb to the top left of the plot).
- Justification is too long (only 50 words allowed by PRL).
Cheers,
Patrick
On 18 May, 2016, at 22:34 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
We have two papers on the same analysis assigned to us:
Title : Observation of exotic $J/\psi \phi$ structures from amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRL Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-018-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
and
Title : Amplitude analysis of $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-019-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Hi all,
Here are the collected and combined comments for the two papers. If everyone is okay with these, I'll submit them to CDS this evening. So please send any comments on this list by this afternoon.
Cheers, Elena
On 27 May 2016, at 22:08, Patrick Koppenburg Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch wrote:
Hi again,
A few more for the PRD:
General comments to the PRL apply here too.
Tables 1 and 2 : statistics -> yield L.36: naive -> one-dimensional Fig. 4: "... corresponds to unity efficiency when averaged over phase-space" (1 over could be read as "1/...") Fig,7: ). By (dot missing) Fig,8 and following: The density... to the signal yield L.304: resonance ... has, or resonances ... have L.432: why the "?" ? Fig.22: it's hard to convince oneself that this fit is bad. Do you have other projections to show?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 27/05/16 22:00, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi Elena.
A few comments interleaved with Jeroen's. Most of my comment have been spotted by Jeroen, so I do not repeat.
On 27/05/16 11:58, Elena Dall'Occo wrote:
Hi all,
I will collect and combine the comments of the two papers. The deadline is on Monday, so please send me your comments by tomorrow evening.
Thanks, Elena
On 19 May 2016, at 13:36, Jeroen Van Tilburg <jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch mailto:jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi,
I have written down some comments on the PRL paper. Mostly textual. Many points apply to the PRD paper as well. We should ask to also update the PRD paper following these comments.
Cheers Jeroen
- Word count is missing.
- throughout the text use smaller spacing between the numbers and the units. Like this “10\mev”.
- Tables and figures: place the figures either at the bottom or top of the page. Write all particle symbols in italics.
- Fig. 2 should be placed before Fig. 1.
- add article in title: “from an amplitude analysis”
not necessarily. See "Constraints on the unitarity triangle angle γ from Dalitz plot analysis of B0 → DK+π– decays" paper 2015-059
- all ranges should be separated by -- and not -
- abstract line 1: remove J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− here. This is not relevant for the abstract. If you insist to keep it change to "…B+ → J/ψφK+ decay, with J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− is performed…”
- abstract line 3: write out in full $\sqrt{s}=7\tev$ and $8\tev$
- abstract line 4: Split sentence “...into $\phi\Kp$. Instead, four $\jpsi\phi$…"
- abstract line 8: “much larger than,”
- abstract: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”
- l.3: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”. Here you could define \sigma
- l.7: add comma after “states [3-9]”
- l.9: No new paragraph and remove “However”.
- l.11: remove "(0.37/fb of data)", it's weird here and 1/fb is not a unit of data.
- l.12: add commas around “however”
- l.16: Give the reference for CMS (presumably it is the same as [22]).
- l.16: What does this mean “a mass which is higher by 3.2\sigma”? This does not tell me anything.
- l.14-19: These secondary peaks seem to have no correlation with each other; they are at different masses. So what is the use of this paragraph? Please put this paragraph in a bit of context. For instance, it would already help to add a sentence at the start of this paragraph which says something like “Additional resonance structures in the \jpsi\Pphi spectrum have also been seen, albeit at different masses."
L.25: naive -> one-dimensional
- l.38: No new paragraph.
- l.40: The cms energies are not a range. write: "7 and 8\tev"
- l.48: Change "The non-φ B+ background” to "The non-resonant $\Bp\to\jpsi\Kp\Km\Kp$ background"
- l.54: Suggest to shorten to "where θ is the helicity angle [30–32], and ∆φ is the angle between the decay planes of the two particles"
- l.56: as -> by
- l.61: helicity angle.
- l.65. beta is defined in the PRD but I cannot find its definition here.
- l.67: Monte Carlo events mentioned for the first time. Add the standard references.
... and call it simulated events
- l.66-68: This sentence is impossible to understand. All you do is determine the normalisation per event using MC. Change this sentence into something like: “The 6D efficiency corrections are obtained from simulation [refs].” If you want you could add “...obtained on an event-by-event basis from..”.
- l.72: use long dash (minus symbol, not a hyphen) in the given range.
- l.75: use semicolon after “free"
- l.76: comma before which.
- l.77: comma before since.
- l.78: no hyphen in "S wave”
- Fig.1: It is not defined what (K*s) means. Remove it.
why is Fig.1 before fig 2?
- l.84-86: The explanation of the quantum labels should come after the 1st reference to the figure (i.e. on l.73).
- l.87: With such a low probability it is really not important to give details on how the p-value was obtained. Shorten this to: “free parameters and the $p$-value is less than 10^{-7}$.
- l.87: $p$-value
- l.105-106: "p-value of chi2 value” is not clear; should be “p-value obtained from the chi2 value…”. Also (71.5/68 bins) is not clear or correct, since you need to subtract the number of fit parameters. Suggest to shorten to: “The $p$-value is $22%$, where ..."
- l.110: "The systematic errors [27] sum in quadrature the observed changes in the fit results” is not proper grammar. Suggest “The systematic uncertainties [27] are obtained from the sum in quadrature of the observed changes in the fit results:
... and generally replace error by uncertainty, except in "error bar"
- l.117: No new paragraph.
- l.117-118: place commas around “after… the fit”
- l.119-121: the clause “with numbers of … parameters)” strikes me as details and makes the sentence way too long. Suggest to remove it.
- Fig.2: Fix the overlapping particle names (and make them italic). Light green is not well visible on screen; choose a different color. The JP numbers below the x-axis are badly aligned; it is impossible to see to which resonances they belong.
Indeed. Vertical bars could help. I wonder if that fig is needed in the PRL.
- Table 2: why abbreviate F.F.? Just call it fraction in the table (the title above already tell me that this is “Fit results”).
The alignment is unclear. It took me very long to figure out how to read it. Maybe making it larger with LHCb results on the left and external results on the right would be better.
- Table 2, 2nd line caption: remove “given”
- Table 2: Write units between square brackets. E.g. M0 [MeV].
- Table 2: Why give the K resonance results? Most of them are no real improvement concerning the mass and width. Only K(1830), but this is something that you can mention in the text. Suggest to leave the K resonance part for PRD.
- Table 2: write out “average”.
- l.130: hyphenate “near-threshold”
- l.138: It would be good to explicitly say that this result supersedes the previous one.
- l.139: remove “in an unpublished analysis”. This is a repetition of the introduction.
- l.144: no hypen in “phase space”
- l.148: colon after resonances
L.153: That 1++ is not allowed for 0++ or 2++ resonances looks like a tautology. Explain what you mean.
- l.160: no hyphen in “form factor”
- l.179: abbreviate to “6D”
- Fig.3: Make the legend larger (it is easy: make the marker smaller and move LHCb to the top left of the plot).
- Justification is too long (only 50 words allowed by PRL).
Cheers,
Patrick
On 18 May, 2016, at 22:34 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
We have two papers on the same analysis assigned to us:
Title : Observation of exotic $J/\psi \phi$ structures from amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRL Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-018-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
and
Title : Amplitude analysis of $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-019-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Hi all,
The proponents have responded to our comments on PAPER-2016-018-001 and PAPER-2016-019-001. They can be found at http://cds.cern.ch/record/2157186 http://cds.cern.ch/record/2157186 and http://cds.cern.ch/record/2157188 http://cds.cern.ch/record/2157188 respectively. Please take a look and see whether your comments were adequately addressed.
Cheers, Elena
On 30 May 2016, at 07:38, Elena Dall'Occo e.dallocco@nikhef.nl wrote:
Hi all,
Here are the collected and combined comments for the two papers. If everyone is okay with these, I'll submit them to CDS this evening. So please send any comments on this list by this afternoon.
Cheers, Elena
<20160529Nikhef_PRD.rtf> <20160529Nikhef_PRL.rtf>
On 27 May 2016, at 22:08, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi again,
A few more for the PRD:
General comments to the PRL apply here too.
Tables 1 and 2 : statistics -> yield L.36: naive -> one-dimensional Fig. 4: "... corresponds to unity efficiency when averaged over phase-space" (1 over could be read as "1/...") Fig,7: ). By (dot missing) Fig,8 and following: The density... to the signal yield L.304: resonance ... has, or resonances ... have L.432: why the "?" ? Fig.22: it's hard to convince oneself that this fit is bad. Do you have other projections to show?
Cheers,
Patrick
On 27/05/16 22:00, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi Elena.
A few comments interleaved with Jeroen's. Most of my comment have been spotted by Jeroen, so I do not repeat.
On 27/05/16 11:58, Elena Dall'Occo wrote:
Hi all,
I will collect and combine the comments of the two papers. The deadline is on Monday, so please send me your comments by tomorrow evening.
Thanks, Elena
On 19 May 2016, at 13:36, Jeroen Van Tilburg <jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch mailto:jeroen.van.tilburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi,
I have written down some comments on the PRL paper. Mostly textual. Many points apply to the PRD paper as well. We should ask to also update the PRD paper following these comments.
Cheers Jeroen
- Word count is missing.
- throughout the text use smaller spacing between the numbers and the units. Like this “10\mev”.
- Tables and figures: place the figures either at the bottom or top of the page. Write all particle symbols in italics.
- Fig. 2 should be placed before Fig. 1.
- add article in title: “from an amplitude analysis”
not necessarily. See "Constraints on the unitarity triangle angle γ from Dalitz plot analysis of B0 → DK+π– decays" paper 2015-059
- all ranges should be separated by -- and not -
- abstract line 1: remove J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− here. This is not relevant for the abstract. If you insist to keep it change to "…B+ → J/ψφK+ decay, with J/ψ → μ+μ−, φ → K+K− is performed…”
- abstract line 3: write out in full $\sqrt{s}=7\tev$ and $8\tev$
- abstract line 4: Split sentence “...into $\phi\Kp$. Instead, four $\jpsi\phi$…"
- abstract line 8: “much larger than,”
- abstract: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”
- l.3: write out \sigma as “standard deviations”. Here you could define \sigma
- l.7: add comma after “states [3-9]”
- l.9: No new paragraph and remove “However”.
- l.11: remove "(0.37/fb of data)", it's weird here and 1/fb is not a unit of data.
- l.12: add commas around “however”
- l.16: Give the reference for CMS (presumably it is the same as [22]).
- l.16: What does this mean “a mass which is higher by 3.2\sigma”? This does not tell me anything.
- l.14-19: These secondary peaks seem to have no correlation with each other; they are at different masses. So what is the use of this paragraph? Please put this paragraph in a bit of context. For instance, it would already help to add a sentence at the start of this paragraph which says something like “Additional resonance structures in the \jpsi\Pphi spectrum have also been seen, albeit at different masses."
L.25: naive -> one-dimensional
- l.38: No new paragraph.
- l.40: The cms energies are not a range. write: "7 and 8\tev"
- l.48: Change "The non-φ B+ background” to "The non-resonant $\Bp\to\jpsi\Kp\Km\Kp$ background"
- l.54: Suggest to shorten to "where θ is the helicity angle [30–32], and ∆φ is the angle between the decay planes of the two particles"
- l.56: as -> by
- l.61: helicity angle.
- l.65. beta is defined in the PRD but I cannot find its definition here.
- l.67: Monte Carlo events mentioned for the first time. Add the standard references.
... and call it simulated events
- l.66-68: This sentence is impossible to understand. All you do is determine the normalisation per event using MC. Change this sentence into something like: “The 6D efficiency corrections are obtained from simulation [refs].” If you want you could add “...obtained on an event-by-event basis from..”.
- l.72: use long dash (minus symbol, not a hyphen) in the given range.
- l.75: use semicolon after “free"
- l.76: comma before which.
- l.77: comma before since.
- l.78: no hyphen in "S wave”
- Fig.1: It is not defined what (K*s) means. Remove it.
why is Fig.1 before fig 2?
- l.84-86: The explanation of the quantum labels should come after the 1st reference to the figure (i.e. on l.73).
- l.87: With such a low probability it is really not important to give details on how the p-value was obtained. Shorten this to: “free parameters and the $p$-value is less than 10^{-7}$.
- l.87: $p$-value
- l.105-106: "p-value of chi2 value” is not clear; should be “p-value obtained from the chi2 value…”. Also (71.5/68 bins) is not clear or correct, since you need to subtract the number of fit parameters. Suggest to shorten to: “The $p$-value is $22%$, where ..."
- l.110: "The systematic errors [27] sum in quadrature the observed changes in the fit results” is not proper grammar. Suggest “The systematic uncertainties [27] are obtained from the sum in quadrature of the observed changes in the fit results:
... and generally replace error by uncertainty, except in "error bar"
- l.117: No new paragraph.
- l.117-118: place commas around “after… the fit”
- l.119-121: the clause “with numbers of … parameters)” strikes me as details and makes the sentence way too long. Suggest to remove it.
- Fig.2: Fix the overlapping particle names (and make them italic). Light green is not well visible on screen; choose a different color. The JP numbers below the x-axis are badly aligned; it is impossible to see to which resonances they belong.
Indeed. Vertical bars could help. I wonder if that fig is needed in the PRL.
- Table 2: why abbreviate F.F.? Just call it fraction in the table (the title above already tell me that this is “Fit results”).
The alignment is unclear. It took me very long to figure out how to read it. Maybe making it larger with LHCb results on the left and external results on the right would be better.
- Table 2, 2nd line caption: remove “given”
- Table 2: Write units between square brackets. E.g. M0 [MeV].
- Table 2: Why give the K resonance results? Most of them are no real improvement concerning the mass and width. Only K(1830), but this is something that you can mention in the text. Suggest to leave the K resonance part for PRD.
- Table 2: write out “average”.
- l.130: hyphenate “near-threshold”
- l.138: It would be good to explicitly say that this result supersedes the previous one.
- l.139: remove “in an unpublished analysis”. This is a repetition of the introduction.
- l.144: no hypen in “phase space”
- l.148: colon after resonances
L.153: That 1++ is not allowed for 0++ or 2++ resonances looks like a tautology. Explain what you mean.
- l.160: no hyphen in “form factor”
- l.179: abbreviate to “6D”
- Fig.3: Make the legend larger (it is easy: make the marker smaller and move LHCb to the top left of the plot).
- Justification is too long (only 50 words allowed by PRL).
Cheers,
Patrick
On 18 May, 2016, at 22:34 PM, Patrick Koppenburg <Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch mailto:Patrick.Koppenburg@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi all,
We have two papers on the same analysis assigned to us:
Title : Observation of exotic $J/\psi \phi$ structures from amplitude analysis of $B^+ \to J/\psi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRL Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-018-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153866 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
and
Title : Amplitude analysis of $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ decays
Journal : PRD Contact authors : Thomas_Britton, Tomasz_Skwarnicki Reviewers : Wenbin_Qian (chair), Tim_Gershon EB reviewer : Nicola_Serra EB readers : Brian_Meadows, Simon_Eidelman Analysis note : ANA-2015-042 Deadline : 30-May-2016 e-group : lhcb-paper-2016-019-reviewers Link :https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2153867 Authors : LHCb Twiki :https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCbPhysics/B2JPsiPhiK
The following institutes are requested to make institutional comments: Moscow_State_University__Russia LPNHE__Paris__France Firenze__Italy UFRJ__Rio_de_Janeiro__Brazil EPFL__Lausanne__Switzerland NIKHEF__Netherlands
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl mailto:Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
--
Patrick Koppenburg Nikhef, Amsterdam http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html http://www.koppenburg.org/address.html
-
Elena Dall'Occo -
Jeroen Van Tilburg -
Patrick Koppenburg