Hi Bob, > > > g) partial widths, since these are directly comparable to theory and > > > are the same for B+ and B0 up to isospin-breaking effects (but the > > > partial BFs are not). > > Why should the rates neccessarily the same? If WA is playing a substantial > > role then also the rates will significantly different unless the difference > > in the B+ and B0 is only due to WA effects is compensating this. > > I always thought it was Pauli Interference making the main part of the > > lifetime difference though ... > > The point here is fairly trivial - the BF are NEVER the same due to the > lifetime difference. The partial widths are the same up to WA effects. OK, then it's 100% clear. > > > 2) We can use moments from b->clnu, b->ulnu and b->sg to constrain the > > > SF parameters. There are two paths to extracting Vub from this > > > information that seem to be agreed upon: > > > > > > a) fit the shape function parameters on b-->s gamma events and then > > > apply them to Vub, eventually adding the information from the Vub > > > moments themselves. > > > > > > iii) implement the new Neubert et al. formulas for b->ulnu and b->sg > > > in our MC generators > > I'm not sure if this is already taken care of by somebody. > > Any insight here? > > Ric and Masahiro will look into the b->ulnu part, although I'm sure they > could use help. I think the RadPen group is supplying someone to > implement the new b->sg generator. We still need some information from > Neubert for all this. > > > > 3) We should use the mathematica notebooks from Neubert et al. to > > > extract Vub from our partial rates for q2-Ee and the Ee endpoint > > > (and Mx, if the new MC generator is not ready in time). The notebooks > > > should be used with the error ellipses derived from the Belle b-->s gamma > > > moments themselves that are going to be published (allegedly) in two > > > weeks by Neubert&co themselves. > > > 6) We should build our hybrid model in a way that preserves the > > > inclusive values for the <Mx^2> and <Mx^4-<Mx^2>^2> moments > > That would be a nice feature. Is the procedure already clear how to build > > the hybrid in this case? > > No - ideas here would be welcome. Could you tell me what the exact starting point in the discussion was which lead to this suggestion? > > > > > > 8) We got no new suggestion on how to better quantify the WA uncertainty; > > > just the usual comparison of B+/B0 rates in b->ulnu at high > > > q2 / high Ee / low Mx. Neubert said: "until you have better information > > > take 3% as the relative error in the B+/B0 semileptonic widths and > > > assume the full difference is contained in your signal region." > > > Nobody objected to this. Note that 3% on the difference in total > > > rates means 1.5% on the average rate, which is more relevant to our > > > inclusive measurements (except in cases where tagging results in a > > > significant B+/B0 acceptance asymmetry). > > Hm, where does the 3% actually come from? > > E.g. Macro has been playing around with errors of O(20-30%). > > In this context: where does this large error come from? > > If you go back to the original paper by Voloshin (to which nobody seems to > have added anything of substance) he quote (eqn 9) DBF = 3.9|Vub|^2 = > 1*10^-4, where DBF = BF(B+->Xlnu) - BF(B0->Xlnu). The sign of the effect > is unknown. For analyses accepting equal fractions of B+ and B0, the > effect is 1/2 DBF divided by the average BF(b->ulnu) or roughly > (1*10^-4)/2 / 25*10^-4 = 2%. If one then assumes that this full 2% is in > the region accepted by our cuts, then the effect on the BF is 2%/fu and on > Vub is 1%/fu. It would be nice if someone checked my math.... Got it :-) BTW: isn't it interesting on its own that all endpoint analyses show smaller results for Vub compared to q2-El or mX-q^2...? Maybe we do already see an effect without having separated explicitely charged and neutral B's... Cheers, Heiko