 |
 |
Hi Heiko, > > rholnu -> BABAR Phys .Rev. D72, 051102 (2005) > Why only BABAR? (Well, I know the answer in part: Averaging the various > B-->rholnu measurements is quite painful and HFAG has not started to work > on it yet.) > In addition, there is also a B+-> rho0 l+ nu from Belle. In principle, > one should average them using isospin symmetry... yes, an average of BaBar&Belle&Cleo would of course be best (the superseded BaBar publication from 2003 can be left out since it's less sensitive). As there is no average available yet (or are there plans to make one for HFAG, Heiko or Francesca?), I think the second best choice is just using the latest BaBar result. One would improve the uncertainty by combining with Belle, but the central values are all very close to each other and I don't think it's one of your dominant systematics, is it?. Ciao, Jochen