Hi Urs,
the numbers we use are those in table 13 of the BAD. It is almost a year
we calculated them, so I do not remember the origin. Did things change
between SP3 and SP4? Anyhow, if you say that the total is incorrect, we
need to find out which of the partial numbers in the table is incorrect.
I agree on the D*lnu, also because this is what we do the sys with.
It is interesting to see the impact on the analysis although I recall that
we already checked that turning off the D sys did not help the B0 puzzle.
ciao
ric
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi,
>
> 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)
>
> 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.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
