 |
 |
Hi Urs, some comments on your XXXs > FROM ECKHARD > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/fsx/commentsToPapers/b2u/elsen.1 > p1, ?4: We eliminate events with low purity... To remove possible > confusion: We exclude events in which this purity P is low. why not? > p2, ?2: - tracking and calorimetry details: With the curlers and energy > deposits mentioned here after the B-reco one starts to wonder how the > Breco would have been affected had the tracks been removed in the first > place. - My feeling is that this is too much detail. we basically remove duplicates also from Breco since we do the overlap also with the breco. I am in favour of keeping this > p3, table I: 5 significant digits on the event yields and 3 on the error > is probably exaggerated. what else can we do? I would keep > p3, table II: I think it is still not very clear from the layout of the > table that the centered values refer to the subtotals. What if you add a > $\sum=$ before the entries? you did it, didn't you? > p4, References: [4] has to be resolved done (see commit) > FRANZ > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/fsx/commentsToPapers/b2u/muheim.1 > Do you really want to quote three results in the abstract, > B(B->Xulv)/B(B->Xlv) and Vub are sufficient. I agree to drop Br(b->ulnu) (keeping it in the text) > paragraph 4. > Change the first sentence of paragraph 4 to > ... hadronic decays of the type Breco -> Dbar Y or its charge conjugate we are actually missing the classical 'charge coniugation is implied...' > 2nd to last sentence: > "we require a minimum purity P to optimize the sensitivity." I prefer Eckhard's solution > 3rd paragraph > 1st sentence: change to > "We select B->Xulv candidates from the B->Xlv sample by requiring ... " this is not exact since we also reject other backgrounds > STEPHANE > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/fsx/commentsToPapers/b2u/willocq.1 > 4) Page 2 left column: > - Par.2: The last sentence refers to the "average mass". The sentence > makes itsound like we are only concerned about being to reconstruct > the average hadronic mass and not the event-by-event mass. Is this > what you mean to write? I think we can say that it is an unbiased estimator of Mx, since its expectation value over the sample is the same as the mean. > - Par.1: it seems that the sentence starting with "The residual > background..." comes out of nowhere. It seems that it would make > sense to talk about residual background in a discussion of selection > cuts. Here it seems out of place. Are these numbers relevant to the > signal region mES>5.27 GeV? I like it where it is > - "...electron, muon, and kaon identification efficiencies by +/-2%, > 3%, and 2%, respectively." The current attempt to compactify the > sentence is a little bit awkward. I agree with him talk to you later ric > > The new draft is as usual at > > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~ursl/prl/prl-03.31.03.ps.gz > > While some of the comments were easy to implement, I mark a bunch of > them with XXXX to discuss or because they need e bit more work. > > I have not yet read the new version, will do so tomorrow before our > meeting. > > > Cheers, > --U. > > > PS: Eckhard, the replies are not yet "ready" ... >