Hi Oliver,
thank you for the interesting reference.
We can dig the information you suggest to look at in
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/VUB-RECOIL/archives/vub-recoil.200307/Author/article-5.html
You are suggesting to look at mb=4.7 GeV and lambda_1=-350 MeV.
This corresponds in our plots to bin 7 in the l1/a variable and bin 3 in
lambdabar/mb (i.e. l1=7 and lb=3 as opposed to the default l1=8 & lb=5).
>From http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~asarti/recoil/rewchisq/
you can see that :
 - the result for BRBR is  0.0259+/-0.0031 as opposed to the default
0.0220+/-0.0027 (for reference the theo error we quote is 0.0036, i.e. we
are 1sigma out).
- The chi^2 of agreement between data-MC in the distribution of Mx is
1.10/dof as opposed to the 1.29/dof of the default values, i.e. data like
these values

If you look at the distribution of the chi^2 of the data-MC agreement in
Mx as a function of the measured BRBR
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/SF/brbr_new.eps
you see that BRBR*1000=25.9 (this is what is plotted on the x axis) is a
pretty likely value (just one sigma out).

So in conclusion we cover with our syst. error the distance from this
possible value of the SF parameters  and this set is actually among the
ones allowed in data
	ciao
	Ric
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Oliver Buchmueller wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to encourage you to have a look into
> hep-ph/0308165, a new paper from Uraltsev and Bigi,
> concerning a possible bias in the extraction of Lambda
> from the photon energy spectrum in b->sg. Since <Eg> is a very important
> ingredient in the extraction of the CLEO's Lambda it might be worthwhile to
> check by how much the Vub results (and error) change. Given the fact, that
> there is now also strong evidence that the lepton moment fit from CLEO
> has underestimated the theoretical errors for P*=1.5, it will be
> interesting to see the impact of
>
> Lambda(1/mb^3) = ~500 MeV   (before 390 MeV)
> l1    (1/mb^3) = -0.3 GeV^2 (before -0.25 GeV^2)
>
> on the Vub analysis.
>
> As far as correlation and errors are concerned, to first order, you can
> just keep the CLEO numbers. Please keep also in mined that the above
> mentioned values are obtained from O(1/mb^3) calculations. You still
> have to translate them to O(1/mb^2) for your analysis (first order
> approximation - just shift your Lambda(1/mb^2) by ~100 MeV upwards
> and l1 by ~50 MeV)
>
>
>
> Oliver
>
>