jump to navigation

Cite this, would you please ? September 25, 2008

Posted by dorigo in news, personal, physics, science.
Tags: , ,
trackback

The article titled “Energy Calibration of b-quark jets with Z->bb decays at the Tevatron collider” has passed the review stage and will appear quite soon on Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A.

So what is the news, you might well ask. The paper was already made available in the ArXiv almost one year ago (and I wrote about the underlying story of a ten-year-long analysis in length). True. But seeing the proofread version, in NIM style, was a pleasant feeling last week, when I gave a last look at the text and spotted a few inaccuracies left over to correct. The paper amounts to 14 pages in NIMA double-column format. It features eight figures and five neat tables. Here is the abstract, for those of you who missed it the other time:

The energy measurement of jets produced by b quarks at hadron colliders suffers from biases due to the peculiarities of the hadronization and decay of the originating B hadron. The impact of these effects can be estimated by reconstructing the mass of Z boson decays into pairs of b-quark jets. From a sample of 584 pb^{-1} of data collected by the CDF experiment in 1.96 TeV proton-antiproton collisions at the Tevatron collider, we show how the Z signal can be identified and measured. Using the reconstructed mass of Z candidates we determine the energy calibration of b-quark jets with a precision better than 2%. This measurement allows a reduction of one of the dominant sources of uncertainty in analyses based on high transverse momentum b-quark jets. We also determine, as a cross-check of our analysis, the Z boson cross-section in hadronic collisions using the b-antib final state as \sigma_Z \times B(Z \to b \bar b) = 1.58^{+0.64}_{-0.41} nb.

Now, for the subject of this post: If you want to cite this paper (please do) I can already provide you with a temporary reference:

J.Donini et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A (2008), doi:10.1016/j.nima.2008.08.133.

Comments

1. Louise - September 25, 2008

The idea of an arxiv has its uses, posting papers for comment before their final form is published. As you know, the arxiv minders have tried to give me trouble, messing with the speaker list in London.

2. Luboš Motl - September 25, 2008

Dear Tommaso, let me guess that there won’t be any blog visitor who will have immediate plans or opportunity to cite the particular paper you mentioned, with a possible exception of Louise Riofrio in her new paper about G=M in Planck units.😉

3. dorigo - September 25, 2008

You are entitled to whatever guess you wish to make, Lubos. And I concur it is not an easily citable paper… I do not know what you have against Louise, but this bullying of the strong (academic) against the weak (independent) is not of my liking.

Cheers,
T.

4. dorigo - September 25, 2008

Hi Louise,

yes, I do know there are dark sides in the arxiv. I hope you will be treated better in the future…
Cheers,
T.

5. Luboš Motl - September 25, 2008

Don’t forget that I am independent, too, so I can bully crackpots and parasites in the Academia as much as I wish, without being accusable that I am doing anything problematic!

6. dorigo - September 25, 2008

Well, you may be currently unemployed, but you still are part of the establishment. You have published papers, have held a position at Harvard, nothing prevents you from returning, and most of all, one may well think you will. So it’s not as you claim…

Cheers,
T.

7. Luboš Motl - September 26, 2008

It depends what you mean by “establishment”. I am not a part of the political academic establishment and I have arguably never been.

If by “establishment”, you mean pure science as the most important part of the culture of our epoch, of course that I am a part of this establishment but according to my moral rules, it surely doesn’t prevent me from criticizing anti-establishment i.e. uncultural tendencies and their carriers.😉

Nothing prevents Dr Louise Riofrio from returning to the political establishment of the Academia either, what’s the difference?


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: