 |
 |
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