 |
 |
I've been skimming bad1214 (I haven't read it carefully yet) and have a coupole quesitons: 0) Why do we have a smaller SF parameter error than Belle, yet use SF input (mb) that has a larger error than what they use? 1) Did you look at cuts other than 1.55 GeV for Mx? If not, why not? 2) If you are going to quote a systematic due to "binning", please read http://babar-hn.slac.stanford.edu:5090/HyperNews/get/Statistics/217.html and follow-ups and explain why you think you're actually measuring anything of value by doing this. 3) Why do you not quote a partial BF for the MX analysis? 4) Figure 17 is fairly convincing...that there's a problem with the background estimation. I'm eager to get these results into Francesco's talk; otherwise Belle will have a better Vub.... however, for publication I insist that Mx be treated with as much care as q2-Mx. It would also be nice to have P+.... Bob \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////// / Robert V. Kowalewski \/ Dept. of Physics and Astronomy \ \ particle.phys.uvic.ca/~kowalews /\ University of Victoria / / Tel: (250)721-7705 \/ P.O. Box 3055 \ \ Email: [log in to unmask] /\ Victoria, BC V8W 3P6 / /////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\