done
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Riccardo Faccini wrote:
> Ciao Daniele,
> could you post this in the review-HN in order to accelerate the review
> process?
> thanks
> ric
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Daniele del Re wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > as discussed at the meeting I performed the systematics due to the
> > exclusive b->ulnu BRs varying separately the pilnu and the rholnu
> > contributions instead of varying all the exclusive components of the same
> > relative amount.
> >
> > These are the results:
> >
> > test BRBR
> >
> > BR(B0->pi+lnu) +30% && BR(B+->pi0lnu) +30% - 1.7%
> >
> > BR(B0->pi+lnu) -30% && BR(B+->pi0lnu) -30% + 2.0%
> >
> > BR(B0->rho+lnu) +30% && BR(B+->rho0,omegalnu) +30% - 0.5%
> >
> > BR(B0->rho+lnu) -30% && BR(B+->rho0,omegalnu) -30% + 0.8%
> >
> > BR(B->pilnu) +30% && BR(B->rholnu) +30% - 2.5%
> >
> > BR(B->pilnu) -30% && BR(B->rholnu) -30% - 2.8%
> >
> >
> > as a crosscheck I tried to remove all the remaining exclusive compenent
> > (not yet observed decay modes)
> >
> > BR(B->Xlnu (not pi and rho) -100% - 5.8%
> >
> >
> > and it seems to go in the opposite direction but explanes why the
> > hybrid and the non resonant model give then similar results (something
> > like a compensation). Quoting this difference as systematics probably
> > would be too conservative since it implies that we don't use at the
> > theoretical information about eta, eta' , a1, b1 , f1 lnu decays.
> >
> >
> > I propose to quote a simmetric syst uncertainty of 2.6%. Together with
> > the systematics due to the fit using the pure non resonant model it gives
> > us a systematics of ~4% that would be conservative.
> >
> >
> > Daniele
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|