 |
 |
Hi Jochen, On Tue, 23 May 2006, Jochen Dingfelder wrote: > > 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 superseded BaBar publication from 2003 can be left out since it's 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 It has been already discussed. I'm not sure that we will make it very soon. In any case, an average needs a bit of work. > 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 It would not only mean averaging with Belle for the neutral B but also for the charged B decay and taking into account isospin. Scaling BABAR neutral B to charged B results in (1.15+-0.33)10^-4. Belle measured for B+ -> rho0lnu: (1.39+-0.29)10^-4. > dominant systematics, is it?. The exclusive BF's result in a 3% systematic error for Mx-Q2. We don't know for mX or Pplus. So it's not large but one out of sevreal ones on the order of 3% . Cheers, Heiko > Ciao, > Jochen >