To do on Belle Note

# To do on Belle Note ### Body + [ ] Fix the statements and separate the **motivation** for measurements on continuum / on-resonacne datasets > bn1532_ml:0021) For example, while at leading order it is correct, that one only has a quark-antiquark pair initially, hard gluon radiation spoils this picture. That is even more of a concern in the thrust analysis, as your high multiplicity selection also selects low thrust events in which gluon radiation and B decays are enhanced. Concerning your statements about B hadronization, there is no b fragmentation at these energies and any B mesons are just created via the Upsilon resonances. The decays of those and of the resulting B mesons are about the best understood ones at Belle, such that your statements about improving the B hadronization process using your results does not make sense. As they are decays and not from fragmentation, they are governed not by Pythia but the precise decay tables in EvtGen. Also, because they are so well understood, I do not understand, why you do not remove B decays entirely based on the MC. + [ ] For continuum: improve understandings to fragmentaion model + [ ] For on-resonance: (1) high-multiplicity angular measurements (2) Can provide some insight into some of the B decays involving special angular correlation of the final-state, e.g. $p\bar{\Lambda}\gamma$..., which is not well-understood by even the EvtGen-Pythia. + [ ] Fig 2,3 (*v3.0: Fig 4,5*) add statistical uncertainties > bn1532_ml:0021) Fig 4,5 Do these points have no statistical uncertainties? Or if they do, why are the fluctuating so much and how severly does that affect your measurement? + [ ] The fact that near-side peak << away-side peak > 1. bn1532_ml:0021) Fig 14,15 (*v3.0: Fig/16/17*): Why is the near-side peak so much smaller than the aways-side peak? Shouldn’ you expect roughtly a similar amount of particles in the near-side and the away-side jets of a di-jet event? If at all, wouldn’t the hard gluon radiation reduce and widen the away-side peak? > 2. bn1532_ml:0021) Fig 35,36 (*v3.0: Fig 32/33) As mentioned before, I do not understand why there is no peak close to Delta phi and delta eta of one corresponding to the same jet the reference particle was from. I think it would be good if you could explain this in more detail. \* Sec. 8.1 serves as explanations to this. The content is already self-contained. But will rearrage it a bit so as to address doubts directly. + [ ] Relate to the energy scale: fig 34. + [ ] No near-side peak in thrust-axis analysis: Sec. 8.1. ### Appendix + [ ] Thrust-axis analysis: event mixing > bn1532_ml:0053) I still think that using the proper event mixing using a similar thrust axis would be better and may actually change that disappearance. For the conference paper you can leave it as it is (if you explain your event mixing in slightly more detail for the thrust axis), but for the actual paper I insist that you at least show me how the proper event mixing changes this result. The word "insist" means that you have to do this to get my approval on the actual paper. + [ ] Missing momentum > bn1532_ml:0021) Section 7.1: Adding the missing momentum is an interesting idea, but may strongly depend on the resolution of particles, ISR photons, and other neutrals that only get partially reconstructed. Have you tested this analysis without using such an addition? Did you require at least the visible energy to be high enough to reduce the effect of this? Typically we use a E_vis cut of > 7 GeV in order to remove some tau-pair events. Looking at the thrust distributions in your multiplicity bins, you clearly see, that only low thrust events have high multiplicity, most of them from B decays, which are definitely not two-jet like events anymore. \* Can provide a cross check: the utility of this is to improve the agreement btw reco & gen + [ ] On resonace (with B-decay) results: quote ridge value > bn1532_ml:0021) Ridge values: I think the statements that those can be seen also in the MC and thus are not hot QCD effects are very important. In some sense it may even be good to quote also the same ridge values for the MC to show that those are actually coming from the B decays. I could not find those values or studies in the appendix. + [ ] Thrust-binned results > bn1532_ml:0004) I am looking to see also the thrust frame analysis. I am not quite sure what you mean with that, though. You should always be in the c.m. Or are you planning to look with respect to the thrust axis? Looking at correlations for different thrust values certainly would be interesting. # bn1532 mailing list ### Comment on v2.2 + [bn1532_ml:0004](https://belle.kek.jp/secured/pub-mailing-lists/bn1532_ml/spool/4.html) ### Comment on v3.0 + [bn1532_ml:0021](https://belle.kek.jp/secured/pub-mailing-lists/bn1532_ml/spool/21.html) ### Others + [bn1532_ml:0030](https://belle.kek.jp/secured/pub-mailing-lists/bn1532_ml/spool/30.html) + [bn1532_ml:0053](https://belle.kek.jp/secured/pub-mailing-lists/bn1532_ml/spool/53.html) + [Committee discussion](https://www.dropbox.com/s/0r98dqxdb5p0g88/TwoParticleCorrelation_20200717_CommitteeDiscussion_minutes.pdf?dl=0)