Hoi,
all is fine with the b2ulnu PRL, one small remaining phrase issue (see
below). I have prepared a new version in
http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/hn/aux/ursl/note582/prl-submit.ps
and propose to reply to the ref with something along the lines
We do indeed lower (our) experimental systematic error by measuring
the fraction Ru. This is mostly due to lepton ID (especially muon
ID) and to better mES fits. We feel a motivation for the measurement
in terms of Ru is in place.
The larger acceptance leads to a smaller extrapolation error
(theoretical error).
We have reworded the phrase so that the distinction between
experimental and theoretical systematic errors is clear.
Comments, please?
Cheers,
--U.
------- start of forwarded message -------
From: Physical Review Letters <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Your_manuscript LG9660 Aubert
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:40:20 +0000 (UT)
Re: LG9660
Measurement of the inclusive charmless semileptonic branching
ratio of B mesons and determination of $|V sub {ub}|$
by B. Aubert, R. Barate, D. Boutigny, J.-M. Gaillard, et al.
Dr. U. Langenegger
SLAC, M/S 95
P.O. Box 20450
Stanford, CA 94309
Dear Dr. Langenegger,
The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees. Acceptance
of your paper for publication is likely, but we first ask you to
consider carefully the enclosed comments.
Please accompany your resubmittal by a summary of the changes made,
and a brief response to any recommendations and criticisms.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Garisto
Senior Assistant Editor
Physical Review Letters
Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 631-591-4141
http://prl.aps.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Report of Referee A -- LG9660/Aubert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have studied the responses of the authors to my
original comments, and the
revised version of the paper. I am happy that all my comments have been
addressed , and now recommend that this paper be published in PRL. I still
have two small suggestions relating to some of my original comments (same
numbering):
3) The phrase in the introduction line 11 still to my mind sounds like a
claim that measurement of the ratio R_u in itself leads to smaller
systematic errors than have previously been acheived, which is
incorrect. I would propose rephrasing it along the lines:
`The analysis extracts |V_ub| by measuring the fraction of charmless
semileptonic decays R_u=... We acheive a higher signal purity and
acceptance than previous analyses [4], leading to smaller systematic
uncertainties.'
6) Significance of the result for the double ratio on page 13. I suggest
adding a phrase such as 'consistent with theoretical expectation', to give
some interpretation, however brief, of this result.
------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------
Second Report of Referee B -- LG9660/Aubert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors have addressed my concerns and have produced a much more
readable descripton of their important analysis. It should be published
as soon as practible.
------- end of forwarded message -------
