 |
 |
Hi Jeff, I learned from Frank Tackmann, collaborator of Zoltan Ligeti, that there is an important connection between B->Xulnu and B->Xsll: In the B->Xsll you are applying a cut in MX and q^2. The MX cut applied is around 1.8 GeV and the q^2 region between 1 and 6 GeV^2 if I'm not mistaken. This is in the shape function region and hence is an important theoretical error in the interpretation of B->Xsll wrt NP. Now, as you already know from Zoltan this error could be significantly reduced if one used the measured rates B->Xulnu by applying the same MX-q^2 cuts. In the main analysis we are cutting on MX<1.7 GeV and q^2>8 GeV^2. However, there is no reason to not quote in addition partial BF's for other cuts if they can be useful for B->Xsll. The VubRecoil group aims for a publication of the MX-q^2 analysis in the forthcoming months. I think it might be useful if we already take into account that the B->Xsll analysis would profit from quoting partial BF's for certain sets of MX-q^2 cuts. These would be partial BF's unfolded for detector effects, that is, the quoted MX-q^2 cut values are the true ones. To use our results you have to do of course the same in B->Xsll. Maybe you could profit from the one-bin unfolding method used in the VubRecoil- MX-q^2 analysis. What do you think? Cheers, Heiko