Questa è una vecchia versione del documento!
http://cms.cern.ch/cds/BPH-13-012
Stefano
We'd like to congratulate the authors for completing this important and difficult measurement. The paper is well written and we don't have major complaints. The clarity of some paragraph can be improved, and we suggest the language editor gives a second pass to the text. Also, a second look at the CMS guidelines for publication will be beneficial. Details below. Good luck with FR and Journal Refs !
Type B Comments
Clarity: the flavour tagging section is particularly hard to understand. In detail:
- Mistag probability sample L177 on. Not clear how the decay B+→Jpsi K+ is used to measure mistag probability. Is the idea to look for the semileptonic decay of the B- on the other side of B+→Jpsi K+ ? If so, it should be said explicitly. Do you really use only B+ or do you mean B+/B- ?
- Choice of parameterization of \omega: “limit the correlation ..” L201 Please explain.
Efficiencies. It seems they are completely derived from MC. Was is possible to perform any data-driven cross check ? It would be nice to add more details about how the efficiency corrections are derived (\epsilon(\Theta))). What are the “three dimensional angular efficiency histograms ” L125
kappa factor, L238. Not clear what it is. “In order to resemble the actual resolution” ?? the sentence has no subject. Please rewrite L238-L240. I am particularly confused by the statement that kappa is measured in simulation by assuming that it is the same in data and MC. One would naively think it is introduced to match the resolution observed in data and MC.
Fit bias: “used as a systematic uncertainty if the difference with respect to the model bias exceeds (the) one standard deviation” L305. Standard deviation of what, of the pull distribution ? You should use the error on the mean of the gaussian fit to the pulls. The sigma of the pull distribution should always be close to one. Please explain. In any case, was this procedure checked with the Statistical Committee ? I think you would be better off by always including the bias in the uncertainty. You do include it for phi_s and DeltaGamma_s anyway, who cares if for the other parameters we enlarge systematics a bit.
Results: Please compare with other experiments. There is no flavour of how CMS performs wrt to other measurements of the same quantity. Consider for example adding CDF, LHCb and Atlas to the plot of Figure 6
Table style: CMS rules are to use \topcaption, to put captions on top of the tables
Figures: - Figure 2: the units on the y axis are funny. Please redo the plot in units of Events/ 3 MeV to avoid using 6 digits.
- Figure 3 left: use Events / 35 um on the y axis label, or at least 0.035 mm - Figure 3 right: again Events / 9.4E-05 cm does not seem a suitable binning. Consider removing this plot altogether.
Acknowledgments: please check if you should rather use the long version.
Type A
L 3: consistency of the SM → its consistency L 6: stems → originates Section 2: No need to split paragraphs IMHO. L136 “muon or electron” add “in the follwing “tag muon or electron” ” L179, L191 : parametrization→ parameterization L274: covariances→ correlations L278: “make the simulated ..” rephrase “by reweighing simulated events in order to reproduce the kaon pt spectrum observed in data ” L287: “the difference of the resolutions” rephrase: “The k factor is varied within the values observed in data and MC” L291 “arising form this source” → “the associated systematic uncertainty”
End Stefano