Sorry, I read 0.016 for the uncertainty for the BF to omega (not eta), I
guess 0.0.16 really means 0.16, which seems a lot more reasonable.
Kerstin
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, Luth, Vera G. wrote:
> Hello Kerstin
> the eta, omega and eta' BF and errors appear to be correct,
> The best measurements are from BABAR, now published!
>
> There is a mistake in the HFAG Winter 09 edition, the BF for omega l nu is
> given in units of 10^-2, when it should be 10^-4!
>
> ===========================================
> Vera Luth
> SLAC - Stanford University, MS 95
> 2575 Sandhill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
> Phone: 001 650 926 2702 Fax: 001 650 926 2657
> ===========================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kerstin Tackmann [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 5:22 PM
> To: Luth, Vera G.
> Cc: vub-recoil
> Subject: RE: B->Xulnu BFs
>
>
> Sorry, I just saw something that seems like a typo: The uncertainty on the
> BF to eta should be an order of magnitude larger, shouldn't it?
>
> Kerstin
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Luth, Vera G. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Kerstin,
>>
>>
>>
>> I recently went through the numbers and also made averages for eta l nu and others. The BF all assume isospin holds, so they have been modified from the HG_FAG averages.
>>
>> The D** BF still reflect the set that had 1.4% non-resonant decays,
>>
>> the newest ones without non-resonant decays are in the presentation I mailed you,
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope that this helps,
>>
>>
>>
>> Vera
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================
>>
>> Vera Luth
>>
>> SLAC - Stanford University
>>
>> 2575 Sandhill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
>>
>> Phone: 650 926 2702 FAX 650 926 2657
>>
>> ============================================
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kerstin Tackmann
>> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:32 PM
>> To: vub-recoil
>> Subject: B->Xulnu BFs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear vub-recoilers,
>>
>>
>>
>> if I remember correctly, you more-or-less recently updated the weights for
>>
>> the B->Xulnu BFs, but the new files do not seem to have made it into cvs
>>
>> yet. I am doing the same on my side by going to the HFAG averages for the
>>
>> pi, rho, omega and eta' modes, but I am not sure what to use for eta
>>
>> (where there are several measurements, but no average from HFAG) and for
>>
>> the inclusive BF (I cannot find anything on the HFAG page).
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, what did you pick for mb and a? B->Xclnu only? B->Xsgamma only? The
>>
>> combination? I can basically come up with reasonable justifications for
>>
>> either of the choices and am wondering what you decided for.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks much,
>>
>> Kerstin
>>
>>
>
|
