 |
 |
There's a scheduled meeting? What is the phone number? Ale ______________________________________________________ Alessio Sarti Universita' & I.N.F.N. Ferrara >>>I'm in Ferrara<<< tel +39-0532-974328 Ferrara roma +39-06-49914338 SLAC +001-650-926-2972 "... e a un Dio 'fatti il culo' non credere mai..." (F. De Andre') "He was turning over in his mind an intresting new concept in Thau-dimensional physics which unified time, space, magnetism, gravity and, for some reason, broccoli". (T. Pratchett: "Pyramids") On Mon, 5 May 2003, Riccardo Faccini wrote: > Hello, > I have been wading through the comments from the collaboration and > implementing changes. The result is in > http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rfaccini/phys/vub/prl/ > prl_paper.ps is the new version of the paper while the other text files > are responses to the posting. > > There was a general need for clearer introduction and for improved > description of the BRBR equation. In order to be able to do this I put in > text the table from systematics. My point of you is that every > number that was in the table is in the text (except the sums...) and that > it is true that this makes life a bit more difficult to people interested > in combining, but we know them ... Also, I think that the relationship > between numbers and descriptions is now much clearer and that anyhow there > qill be a longer paper soon that will incorporate all the details. > This said I am open to suggestion or to reverting to the table is an > alternative way of saving space is found. > > There are a few changes that I did not implement (or only partially) that > I would like to discuss with you: > 1) Franz proposes again a change of notation > He says: > " > I still prefer the notation "B -> X_ubar l+ nu" > over "Bbar -> X_u l nubar", > and I would switch, mainly for consistency with other BaBar papers > In "Vub exclusive" and "semileptonic branching ratio", we have always > started with the particle, not the antiparticle. > The subscripts "sl" can be removed everywhere > " > > I find this change an unnecessary pain > 2) I had to chang by hand some numbers in the files that Urs > generates automatically. We should change the script: > - in the introduction the two theo errors on Vub were > lumped together > - the sel and Mx efficiencies were reported in % > - the results in Table I were converted in % > > 3) there were two requests to number the equations. I think it is > not needed and would be tough to achieve without wasting precious space > 4) there were some requests on the figures: > - less ticks and also on the other two sides > - add on Fig1 "MC" explicitely > - add to figure 1 the same plot as (b) but for the > background. It could be referred to when discussing the discriminating > power. This might be a good idea and merging together the vertical lables > (they are a.u. anyhow) it would fit in the same space > - figure 2 : the two plots should be made same size (tough > to see the difference > - fig 3a is still missing the "other" in the legenda > - vivek did not like figure 3b because he thought it was > hinting at a problem when there is none. I don't see what we should do for > this > > A part for the changes in the figures (at least one of them), I > think we should discuss this draft asap. If somebody is really unhappy > about the structural changes let us discuss it (I did it in steps which > are undoable), otherwise I would propose to meet on wednesday at 8:30 PT > to finalize the response. > ciao > ric > >