Hi Riccardo,
what about the chi^2 of the Mx fit for the different (a,mb) points
suggested by CLEO? could you add them the second table of the page?
Daniele
> Hi,
> I have finally managed to redo all weights to estimate the errors
> according to the requests of CLEO (and therefore Gibbons).
> The technique and the results are summarized in
> http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/hn/aux/rfaccini/ISL/shape_function.html#SF
> I have used the PRL fit, with a small fix to the reweighting.
> My bottom line is that using their SF parameters our measurement should be
>
> Vub=(5.04+/-0.30(stat)+/-0.28(sys)+0.61-0.041(SF)+/-0.26(pert+1/mb^3))10^-3
>
> compared to our published value
>
> Vub=(4.62+/-0.28(stat)+/-0.27(sys)+-0.041(SF)+/-0.23(pert+1/mb^3))10^-3
>
> A part from a shift in central value I would conclude that only our upper
> error has significantly changed by the amount they claim [Gibbons
> calculates
> Vub=(4.79+/-0.29(stat)+/-0.28(sys)+-0.060(SF)+/-0.33(pert+1/mb^3))10^-3
> ]
>
>
> Please have a look at the numbers and the procedure. Otherwise I would
> suggest to Gibbons to use this result for his miniReview
> (although it is unclear if there is any PB related issue ...)
> bye
> Ric
>
>
|