 |
 |
Ciao Concezio, On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Concezio Bozzi wrote: > I got the following message from Gil Paz. Concerning point 1), I suspect > we wrote that sentence after we were persuaded by Matthias and > collaborators that b->sgamma moments calculations were more reliable, > correct? Could anybody remind me the reference for that? The statement: > "However, there are concerns that the extraction of the shape function > parameters from the photon spectrum in B->Xs gamma is less reliable" depends actually on the calculations you are considering. If you use, Benson, Bigi and Uraltzev, the authors do not trust their predictions of the b->sgamma differential branching fraction but just the moments. However, if you use the BLNP calculation (as you need to do for Vub) they do. So the statement as it is currently written is actually wrong. I suspect that you added that statement in the paper (and sorry for not having noticed it in time!) because some confusion was generated after we sent out our b2sgamma results for Moriond: two different theoretical groups were giving different information (on top of people in BaBar just familiar with a calculation) generated quite a lot of confusion. So, I am afraid to say that the current statement in the paper is not valid and should be removed... Please let me know if you need more info on the topic.... > > 3) We were surprised to see that your paper does not contain an > acknowledgment to the many discussions we had with your group, or to the > fact that we had provided you with a code to generate the partial rates. > We hope this will be fixed in a revised version. > Ah, that's a very tricky issue. Theorists feel very strongly the fact that they should be acknowledged in the papers. Be aware of it for the future :) Ciao Francesca