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:
Alessio Sarti <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
20 Jan 2003 02:37:26 -0800 (PST)Mon, 20 Jan 2003 02:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (48 lines)
> I am looking in recoilDsys.cc at
>
>   TRandom rndm(seed);
>   float xv0[6]={10.2,2.10,4.68,0.,0.63,0.23}; // existing measurements (order: all semilep, D,D*,nothing,D1*,D2*)
>   float xt0[6]={11.3,2.10,5.60,9.,0.56,0.37};// values from decay.dec
>   float xe0[6]={0.4,0.19,0.22,0.,0.10,0.08}; // errors on existing measurements
>
> from the  HEAD of  IBU. I think  that these hard-coded  numbers should
> tell about  B0 decays (compared to  the tables in  files which contain
> the D decay numbers), right?
>
> Can someone please explain these numbers?  In particular, I am puzzled
> about the following:
>
> o How do we get 11.3 from decay.dec? I checked and that should be 10.4
>   and it is (if you sum it up, e.g. in release 10.3.1a). The existing
>   measurements for the sl BR B->Xc l nu is 10.42, not 10.2 (PDG)

Hi,
the number quoted (11.3) comes from the generator level study made from
Ric months ago (if I do remember well): I remember that there were some
discrepancies (discussed in a MC session on generator parameters) btw the
values quoted in DECAY.DEC and the values found with jobs at generator
level.
I do not know how hard would be to rerun the study at generator level and
revalidate the numbers.....

>
> o I  would propose  to change 4.68  to 5.4\pm  0.22 since that  is the
>   latest and greatest average from the old LEP-HF working group ([not]
>   shown in Amsterdam, but implicit in the Vcb's shown there).  This is
>   most probably going to be the new PDG value for the 2003 web update.

I agree on that :) but, as Ric, I remember that in the past the
contribution from semileptonic systematics has never helped on B0
buisness.

Ciao,
Alessio

>
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>



ATOM RSS1 RSS2