VUB-RECOIL Archives

Vub measurement using recoil of fully reconstructed Bs

VUB-RECOIL@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Riccardo Faccini <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
19 Nov 2003 04:26:57 -0800 (PST)Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:26:57 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (133 lines)
Hi Urs,
the corrections are fine with me, just a couple of remarks:
- I see that you sneak in the inversion of the B0/Bch ratio. Do we want to
point it out to the reviewer?
- in the response to the referee I would explicitely say what you change
in the text and spare him the effort of chasing the changes in the text.
- the prl_submit.tex in the repository still contains comments (%) which
should be removed when uploading
- it would be nice to update the BAD repository as well

	thanks
	Ric


______________________________________________________
Riccardo Faccini
Universita' "La Sapienza" & I.N.F.N. Roma
tel  +39/06/49914798 Fax.: +39/06/4957697
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini
Univ. La Sapienza. 2,Ple Aldo Moro, I-00185 Roma Dipartimento di Fisica

"I don't understand what you say, but I believe I disagree" W.D.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote:

>
> Hoi,
>
> all is fine with the b2ulnu PRL, one small remaining phrase issue (see
> below). I have prepared a new version in
>
>  http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/hn/aux/ursl/note582/prl-submit.ps
>
> and propose to reply to the ref with something along the lines
>
>   We do indeed lower  (our) experimental systematic error by measuring
>   the fraction  Ru. This is mostly  due to lepton  ID (especially muon
>   ID) and to better mES fits. We feel a motivation for the measurement
>   in terms of Ru is in place.
>
>   The  larger  acceptance  leads  to  a  smaller  extrapolation  error
>   (theoretical error).
>
>   We  have  reworded  the  phrase  so  that  the  distinction  between
>   experimental and theoretical systematic errors is clear.
>
> Comments, please?
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
>
>    ------- start of forwarded message -------
>    From: Physical Review Letters <[log in to unmask]>
>    To: [log in to unmask]
>    Subject: Your_manuscript LG9660 Aubert
>    Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:40:20 +0000 (UT)
>
>    Re: LG9660
>        Measurement of the inclusive charmless semileptonic branching
>        ratio of B mesons and determination of $|V sub {ub}|$
>        by B. Aubert, R. Barate, D. Boutigny, J.-M. Gaillard, et al.
>
>    Dr. U. Langenegger
>    SLAC, M/S 95
>    P.O. Box 20450
>    Stanford, CA 94309
>
>    Dear Dr. Langenegger,
>
>    The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees.  Acceptance
>    of your paper for publication is likely, but we first ask you to
>    consider carefully the enclosed comments.
>
>    Please accompany your resubmittal by a  summary of the changes made,
>    and a brief response to any recommendations and criticisms.
>
>
>
>    Yours sincerely,
>
>    Robert Garisto
>    Senior Assistant Editor
>    Physical Review Letters
>    Email: [log in to unmask]
>    Fax: 631-591-4141
>    http://prl.aps.org/
>
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Second Report of Referee A -- LG9660/Aubert
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    I have studied the responses of the authors to my
>
>    original comments, and the
>    revised version of the paper.  I am happy that all my comments have been
>    addressed , and now recommend that this paper be published in PRL.  I still
>    have two small suggestions relating to some of my original comments (same
>    numbering):
>
>    3) The phrase in the introduction line 11 still to my mind sounds like a
>    claim that  measurement of the ratio R_u in itself leads to smaller
>    systematic errors than have  previously been acheived, which is
>    incorrect. I would propose rephrasing it along the  lines:
>     `The analysis extracts |V_ub| by measuring the fraction of charmless
>    semileptonic  decays R_u=... We acheive a higher signal purity and
>    acceptance than previous analyses [4], leading to smaller systematic
>    uncertainties.'
>
>    6) Significance of the result for the double ratio on page 13.  I suggest
>    adding a phrase such as 'consistent with theoretical expectation', to give
>    some interpretation, however brief, of this result.
>
>
>    ------------------------------------------------
>    --
>    --------------------------
>    Second Report of Referee B -- LG9660/Aubert
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    The authors have addressed my concerns and have produced a much more
>    readable descripton of their important analysis.  It should be published
>    as soon as practible.
>
>
>    ------- end of forwarded message -------
>
>



ATOM RSS1 RSS2