Dear Soumen,
Thank you for participating in the rehearsal. The talk was 14:30 which was a bit long. It was felt that you could be quicker on the introduction and theory, but there should be more time spent on the rediscovery to compensate. Please see the detailed slide-by-slide comments below. When a new draft is ready please let me, Gagan and Saurabh know so that we can take a look. Please give us adequate time to do this before the talk.
All the best,
Jim

General:

font sizes are too small especially as there is alot of white space.

more focus on the Belle II rediscovery and prospects

Finish exclusive K*gamma including the rediscovery before discussing the inclusive b->s gamma

Slide 2:

Bullet 1: Search -> search

Bullet 4: semi-leptonic has a special meaning to me at least though technically correct, I think 'electroweak' as in the title would be better

Slide 3:

Left diagram: the propagator can be NP too

Indirect also sensitive to energy scale

CMS frame -> centre-of-mass frame

Flavour -> flavour

New Physics -> New Physics (NP) - under left figure

luminosity frontier->intensity frontier (twice)

rarer process -> rare processes

Belle II other reference Phil's talk

Slide 4:

EWP undefined maybe EWP B MESON -> LOOP MEDIATED or just RARE

Bullet 1: Tree -> tree

sub-bullet loop and CKM suppressed

Bullet 2: can be removed as it is repetition of Bullet 3

Bullet 3: BR or -> branching ratio and/or

Effect Field theory -> Effective field theory

What is \mu?

Cannot see the labels related to the bsgamma and bsll operators

I think there are too many diagrams on this slide and you should focus on what you are trying to say

- there is an SM process

- there are possible NP diagrams i.e. H+

- can be parameterized as an EFT with generic operators and Wilson coefficients

Slide 5:

- mention the analysed data for the K*gamma rediscovery shown

- space before ab^-1

Move K*gamma and rediscovery here

Slide 6:

- I think reference Slavomira's talk the next day

Cut some of the text to focus on the figures

Hadronic tag and Semi-leptonic bullets are explained in the figure and the text can be removed

Slide 7:

- space before GeV which also should not be in italics

- never discussed the lower right plot drop top plot and discuss prospects more.

- capitalization Charged -> charged, Sum-of -> sum-of

- systematically dominant -> systematics dominated

- be clear how Belle II will reduce the systematic uncertainty on the inclusive measurement

Slide 8: too dense, table to back up, write the expect 50 ab^-1 precision on the various measurements

consistent use of A_{CP} or \mathcal{A}_{CP}

Slide 9: more time on the Belle II data

A few more details of the analysis

- Yield agree.... -> Yield agrees with the expectation from the PDG branching fraction

Slide 10:

Eqs can be dropped just say P_5' is a theoretically robust observable based on the angular distribution sensitive to the respective Wilson coefficients

Focus on Q_i and the equivalent e and mu performance at Belle II

50 /ab -> 50 ab^{-1}

font size much bigger

Slide 11:

Plot for the results

Emphasis that this is a theoretically precise observable (all can be explained around the plot)

Efficiency of e and muon similar

Slide 12:

Stress this mode is not sensitive to C7

Reference to figure

Drop the dense table and the bottom line numbers

Ref. for fig. B2TiP

wilson->Wilson

coeff->coeff. or coefficient or just C_7

Slide 13

55/fb -> 55 fb^{-1}

I also post Diego's comments here for completeness
Hi Soumen,

I won’t be able to attend your practice talk but I compiled below a few comments on your nice slides.

I am not very familiar with the status of these analyse in Belle II so my comments are mostly minor editorial nitpicks.

Apologies for my terse tone: I don’t mean it, just trying to be fast.

I don’t need answer to these. Hope you find them useful

-D.

Is this talk on behalf of Belle II only or also on Belle? I ask because there are mentions of many Belle results.

In general I suggest using “non-SM physics” instead of “new physics”, which is a bit of a jargon.

Slide 3: This slide is nice but probably superfluous for the FPCP audience. if you keep it, suggest not to single out “CMS” here. Also, “flavor” should be uncapped.

Slide 4: Title would sound better to me with plural “searchES” and “decayS”

Slide 4 “Tree” —> “tree”, “Loop” —> “loop”

Slide 4 : “Effect” —> “Effective”

Slide 4 “Physics above” —> “physics above” (uncap)

Slide 4: “field” —> “fields”

Slide 4: “can contribution” —> “can contribute”

Slide 6 “relatively larger” —> “relatively large”

Slide 6 Suggest to reword “Hope on Belle II”

Slide 7 “clean” —> “reliable”

Slide 7 Second subbullet: add space between 1.6 and GeV and use upright font for GeV

Slide 7 “systematically dominant” should be rephrased into “is limited by systematic uncertainty” but you could drop altogether since that’s obvious from the reported numbers. In addition, suggest to replace arxiv ref with paper ref.

Slide 7 Fifth subbullet: add space between 1.6 and GeV and use upright font for GeV

Slide 7 “sum of exclusive” (uncap Sum)

Slide 7 If possible align plots

Slide 8 “statistically limited” —> “limited by sample size” (twice) but , again, you could drop it, since numbers say it al already.

Slide 8 “dataset” are two words: “data set”

Slide 8 Suggest to use same font style as in previous page for paper ref (magenta, underline etc)

Slide 9 Table: looks like numbers have too many signficant digits

Slide 9 Suggest to add a couple of bullets on the main analysis choices/challenges to get these signals

Slide 9 Add reference to public note/webpages?

Slide 9 The yields cannot agree with BF. Perhaps you mean that the observed BF agree with PDG?

Slide 11 Suggest to swap the two big blobs “Advantage at Belle II” and “Current status”

The summary is a bit underwhelming. Suggest to spice up. Also correct typo: “constrains” —> “constraints"

Dear Soumen,

Thanks for posting the updated slides at:

https://docs.belle2.org/record/1939/files/BELLE2-TALK-DRAFT-2020-027.pdf

I have a couple of minor suggestions as listed below.

slide 1: You may put "th" in superscript as "10^th" to be consistent with the date style followed in slide 4.
slide 5: Change "as many as possible final states" to "as many final states as possible"
Hyphenate "Semi-leptonic" similar to "Semi-exclusive"
The right bottom plot denotes the hadronic tagging. As you have space, you might show an equivalent plot for the semi-leptonic tagging.
slide 6: Change the title to "First penguin decay observed at Belle II (B → K^∗γ)"
As the slide is bit busy, you can move the last bulletpoint "Fit the M_bc distribution to extract signal yield" to slide 7, which is more appropriate place for it.
slide 7: The last bulletpoint of slide 6 could be the first bulletpoint here (put on top of the three fit plots).
slide 8: Change the second sub-bulletpoint under the fourth bulletpoint to "Improve statistical uncertainty (semi-inclusive) → include additional modes"
slide 9: Remove "# of peaking background ⊗ difference of A_CP between signal and peaking events" in the third sub-bulletpoint under the third bulletpoint. (it is too
much of detail).
slide 10: Pluralise "Angular observables" in the first bulletpoint.
Change the fourth bulletpoint to "Dominated by the statistical uncertainty in Belle's measurement"
slide 11: Remove the second bulletpoint "Only leptonID systematics do not fully fully cancel in the ratios" under "Advantage for Belle II"
slide 12: Change the third bulletpoint "Interesting for dark sector"
In the next arrowpoint replace "UL to the BR" with "UL on the BF"
In the second bulletpoint under "Belle II prospects" insert "possible" after "10% BF measurement"
Slide 13: In the last bulletpoint insert a comma before "thanks to" and insert "of Belle II" to the end of the sentence.

Gagan

Dear Soumen,
Thank you for the update. The talk is much improved but there is still some scope for further improvement. There are detailed comments slide-by-slide below.
Please let me know when the next version is available.
Jim


Title:
Radiative and electroweak penguin decays: results and prospects at Belle II

Currently 'Results and prospects of' doesn't make sense

Slide 2:
enlarge font
BSM -> Beyond-the-Standard Model (BSM)

Slide 3:
As cute as the middle penguin is I would prefer a diagram the same as the others and a similar size so the BSM diagram below can be the same size

Personally, I don't think the 'Figure:' is necessary as nor the caption style as if it were a paper

'SM allowed processes'

and

'A possible BSM process'

in larger font should suffice

Slide 4:

I think it is still confusing that the $B\to K^*\gamma$ rediscovery is on < 3 fb$^{-1}$ but you talk about samples of anything but that size. I think:

8.7 fb$^{-1}$ bullet -> 'Analyses performed on up to 8.7 fb$^{-1}$ of data' is OK, also note spelling of 'up to'.

There is a lot of white space on this slide. Bottom right figure in particular should be bigger. Given the 'Happy physicists' photo is now > two years old this can perhaps be dropped or shrunk to do this

Slide 5
Again too much white space and fonts can be increased. Also, no need for the 1 Hadronic tag and 2 Semileptonic tag bullets as the graphic is much more informative

No need for the eg. but maybe ', where $X_s$ is any strange final state'

Label left schematic 'Hadronic tagged $B\to X_s\gamma$ event in center-of-mass frame'

X\to X_s in the schematic

Slide 6

$> 5\sigma$ precision with xx ab$^{-1}$ (I don't think we need the full 50 ab$^{-1}$ for this)

Bigger figure so legend can be clearly seen

a FastBDT multivariate classifier (....)

Slide 7
larger plots and larger text

Slide 8
Title: Branching -> Inclusive branching

Again utilize the space better, for example have the figure on the right bottom and then a text box on the left bottom with Goal for Belle II. Same comment on slide 9

'Theoretically more reliable than exclusive' then a sub-bullet with the Misiak et al. prediction

Put a strong constraint-> In effective field theory it puts a strong constraint

Suggestion for the Goal for Belle II sub bullets

Fully inclusive - reduce systematics by better modelling of neutral hadrons faking photons

Sum-of-exclusive - increase the number of modes to reduce the systematic from $X_s$ hadronization

Hadronic tagging method - increased purity so that the $E_{\gamma}^{\rm threshold} can be reduced

Slide 9:
Title Direct CP violation - Inclusive direct CP violation

Make deviation from zero indicates BSM physics a sub bullet and remove one set of parenthesis about the reference

reduced->.... -> reduced using control samples

Last bullet is awkward

Presumably this is charmless background with unknown $A_{CP}$. If so 'More measurements at Belle II of $A_{CP}$ in rare charmless decays that can fake the inclusive signal'

Slide 10: you are switching gears here I would suggest a Sub-section in between Electroweak penguins. Similarly after slide 4 a Radiative penguins sub-section slide.

Bullet 1: observable->observables

Bullet 4: Belle measurement uncertainty is statistically dominated

Bullet 5: Sensitivity of -> Sensitivity to

Slide 11:
Title LFU-> Lepton flavor universality
(It has not been defined previously)

Bullet 1: the coupling is identical it is only phase space (lepton mass) that makes any difference - I would drop the almost

Projection plots are too small
-shrink equation and rearrange text to reduce white space so that they can be expanded

$M_{\rm bc}$ resolution point not clear...LHCb's S/B is very good (better?) because of the vertexing....I would remove.

fully fully -> fully

could be -> will be

Reference for Belle result

Slide 12:
Reference for BABAR measurement?

Make combining charged and neutral modes a sub bullet rather than a parenthetic statement

Slide 13:

drop 'by now'

drop 'a set of' (this will get the orphan decays off the 2nd line'

Are expected -> We expect

Dear Soumen,
Thanks for implemented the suggestions. I have no further comments. I hope the talk goes well.
All the best,
Jim