Hi Roberto, I've already talked to you in person, so ... all good for me! :-) ciao Vir ----------------------------------------------------------------- .*. Two atoms bump into each other. /V\ One says 'I think I lost an electron!' (/ \) The other asks, 'Are you sure?', ( ) to which the first replies, 'I'm positive.' ^^-^^ ----------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Roberto Sacco wrote: > Hi All, > > you will find attached a first draft of our reply to the referees. Please > have a look and let us know how they can be improved. > > Thanks! > > Concezio and Roberto > > --- > > Re: LH11701 > Measurements of partial branching fractions for $\bar{B} > \rightarrow X_u l \bar{\nu}$ and determination of $|V_{ub}|$ > by B. Aubert, M. Bona, D. Boutigny, Y. Karyotakis, J.P. Lees, et al. > > Dr. R. Sacco > Stanford Linear Accelerator Center > Mail Stop 35 > 2575 Sand Hill Road > Menlo Park, CA 94025 > > Dear Dr. Sacco, > > The above manuscript has been reviewed by our referees. We ask you > to consider the enclosed comments from the reports. > > While we cannot make a definite commitment, the probable course of > action if you choose to resubmit is indicated below. > > ( ) Acceptance, if the editors can judge that all or most of the > criticism has been met. > > (X) Return to the previous referee(s) for review if available. > > ( ) Submittal to new referee(s) for review. > > With any resubmittal, please include a summary of changes made > and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms. > > Yours sincerely, > > Robert Garisto > Associate Editor > Physical Review Letters > Email: [log in to unmask] > Fax: 631-591-4141 > http://prl.aps.org/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Report of Referee A -- LH11701/Aubert > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The precise determination of |V_{ub}| is crucial to testing the CKM > sector of the standard model. The length of the side of the unitary > triangle opposite the angle beta is proportional to the ratio |V_ub| > / |V_cb|, making its determination a high priority. Given the rapid > theoretical and experimental progress in this area, it is very > interesting to see how the determination of |V_{ub}| develops. In > this context, the paper uses 4.3 times the data previously used by > BaBar for the |V_{ub}| determination and significantly improves on > the precision of the earlier measurement. For the substantial advance > in its subfield and implications, I regard this work suitable for > publication in PRL. > > The letter is well written and clear. Please consider the following, > minor corrections: > > R: we have taken into account all the following remarks. > > Title: V_{ub} --> |V_{ub}| > > Abstract, L7: (and everywhere else) replace "sys" with "syst" > > p7, L4: "....measure branching fractions for such decays." please > add reference 20 (PRL92_071802) at the end of this sentence, as it > places this paper in the context of the previous measurement. > > p7, L9: "..we present measurements of partial branching > fractions.." --> "..we present a measurement of partial branching > fractions..." > > p7, L22: change "fb^1" into roman: {\rm fb} > > p8, FIG1 caption: "(points with statistical error)". One can't see > on the PRL size whether they have a statistical error, perhaps use > "(full circles)" to refer to them ? > > p8, L5: "..estimated on Monte Carlo (MC) as.." --> "..estimated > using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and is defined as... > > p8, L11: I would perhaps use a capital letter for "threshold function > [15]" --> "Threshold function [15]" > > p8, L15: "p*_l >1 GeV/c" what does the * stand for? Do you label a > particle's momentum with p* instead of simple p? > > p9, L2: use a long dash, with "--", between 0.473 and 0.523 > > p10, L6: "..and $N^{out}_u$ refers.." --> "..and N^{\rm out}_u$ > refers..." that is, don't italicize "out" > > p10, L19: "We estimate the error due to the signal..." --> "We > estimate the uncertainty due to the signal..." > > p10, L19: "The signal modeling uncertainties..." -> "The uncertainty > on the signal modeling are due..." > > p10, L21: "We also calculate the errors associated with the > uncertainties in the non-perturbative..." -> "We also calculate the > uncertainties due to the non-perturbative..." Here and in several > other places later on (e.g. in caption of Tab I) , you should > change "error" with "uncertainty". By systematic "error" one > means a constant shift to the central value of the measurement. By > systematic "uncertainty" it is intended a distribution of the error > with a certain width, which is the quoted number. So the +/- numbers > in Tab I should be referred to as "uncertainties" and not "errors". > > p11, Tab I, caption: "Summary of the measurements of the fitted > numbers of events..." --> "Summary of the fitted number of > events..." > > p11, Tab I: Place a label for the M_X, P_+ and M_X,q^2 column. For > example "Method", or "Cuts" > > p11, Tab I: Last column, add a "\times" before "10^{-3}" > > p11, Tab 2, caption: Add ":" after "..kinematic cuts, from" in > order to brake the long sentence. > > p11, Tab2: the formatting of the first row is not easily readable. > Remove the vertical space between "Shape" and "function" and on > all the other two-word column headings. > > p11, Tab2: add "\pm" in front of numbers in the table > > p12, L2: "...reducing the relative error by..." --> "..reducing > the relative uncertainty by..." > > p12, L3: Add "between the two measurements" after "...highly > correlated". > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Report of Referee B -- LH11701/Aubert > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This Letter provides inclusive partial branching fractions for > charmless semileptonic B meson decay in kinematic regions in which > the dominant semileptonic decay to charm is suppressed. From these > regions, seven different values of Vub are extracted using several > different theoretical calculations of the corresponding partial > widths. > > This paper summarizes the work for three challenging measurements. > The measurements themselves are key to improving our knowledge > of Vub, as they represent the kinematic regions that hold best > theoretical promise for control of the nonperturbative effects. > It's crucial to have a unified analysis such as this so that results > from these different region can be compared with clear control of the > experimental systematic uncertainties so that we can learn how well > we can understand the theoretical uncertainties associated with Vub. > Improved extraction of Vub is crucial to our understanding of the > flavor sector, and particularly to CP violation within that sector. > Therefore the paper is of interest both to the high energy physics > community -- experimental and theoretical -- and to the broader > physics community. > > I should note that the analysis itself is quite complex, and that > much work has clearly gone into the measurements. However, with > the terseness forced by the PRL length, it's difficult to judge the > analysis and the completeness. The basic techniques are certainly > sound -- but the devil for an analysis like this is in control > of the background and exploration of how well that control is > understood. I strongly encourage the authors to submit a companion > PRD in which the details of the analysis are fully described. > > R: indeed, we plan to provide a full description of the techniques > we employ in a PRD. The plan is to include further studies on a > timescale of a few months. > > Overall the writing is clear. > > I recommend publication after the items below have been considered > or addressed. > > 1) Since this is intended for PRL, the introduction and conclusion > must be reworked to be more accessible to a general audience. > For the introduction, this should be straightforward: the context > alluded to in the first sentence could be expanded. The second > sentence should be clarified (B->pipi is also proportional to |Vub|^2 > and doesn't have a pesky neutrino -- sharpen the argument). The > jargon (eg, X_u, X_c) will be familiar to the specialist but are > undefined and, in a related fashion, the basic mass difference > explanation for why X_clnu is suppressed is not given. Etc... > > R: we rewrote the introduction accordingly. > > More serious, though, is the conclusion. Table 1 presents 7 > different values of Vub, for which the uncertainties are highly > correlated. To me that implies that for any given comparison, the > largest th'y error dominates the level of uncertainty. Comparing > results for Mx vs P+ vs Mx,q2, there are differences that are over > two "standard deviations" apart (or however one should interpret > those theory errors). The situation is not even acknowledged > in the paper. At the very least some statement *must* be made. > Preferably, some more interesting questions should be addressed, > which would truly make the analysis high quality for PRL: What > value of Vub should the reader take away (for comparison to which > value in the PDG, for example)? What are potential pitfalls in the > different regions that may bias on region or another (in theory > or exp't)? Could the pattern of differences tell us anything? > In short, what can we learn from these 7 numbers either directly or > relative to other measurements? If there's nothing that we can do > immediately to learn something from these numbers, then shouldn't > the theory errors at the very least be inflated? > > Also in the conclusion, but more for spirit of clarification, are > the Vub's being compared to the inclusive/exclusive average in the > PDG Vub+Vcb review? Are these results appreciably correlated with > that average given the correlation with the previous Mx analysis? > Perhaps more direct comparison with other uncorrelated experimental > determinations with similar kinematic regions, and of "the" Vub from > this paper with exclusive measurements, would be more beneficial > to the general reader. > > The shortcomings of the conclusion for PRL are the sole reason for > not, at this point, recommending "The paper should be published > in PRL after minor revisions are made, without further review." > > R: we have reworked the conclusions in order to evaluate the > compatibility of our different determinations of Vub. We have done > that, in particular, in the BLNP framework after determining the > statistical and systematic correlations between the experimental > determination of the partial branching fractions. We see an agreement > between the Mx and Mx-q^2 analyses, while the Pplus measurement > differs at 2.5 sigma level (this disagreement is also seen by Belle). > We also state that BGE and BLNP give consistent results and that the > values we measure are in good agreement with other > inclusive $V_{ub}$ determinations, and compatible, although > systematically larger, with measurements from charmless > exclusive semileptonic decays. > > 2) The definition of P+ refers to a jet direction -- can this > direction be clarified? Is it the jet axis calculated from the > hadronic X system? > > R: It is indeed calculated from the hadronic system, as its definition > suggests. We decided to drop the reference to the jet direction though, > and just give the definition of P+, along with a reference to > theoretical papers. > > 3) For the Breco purity selection, does "Breco decay" simply refer > rejection of final states with a particular particle content (ie, > a particular decay mode) such as "5 charged pi's + 2 pi0's", or is > it more finely structured: "5 charged pi's + 2 pi0's in particular > kinematic regions"? As written, it sounds like the latter imposed > on an event-by-event basis. Have I misunderstood, and it's really > just a final state selection? > > R: it is not a rejection, rather a selection of decays of the other > B in the event into a specific state. The number of final states that > we fully reconstruct is rather large (of the order of 1000); for > some combinations of particles we may have specific invariant mass > requirements. However, there is not enough space inn this paper to > embark in a detailed description of our selection; we plan to include > a thorough description the upcoming PRD. > > 4) Does "photon energy loss" in the m_ES fit description refer to > initial state radiation, final state radiation or both? The phrase > "caused by photon energy loss" refers only to the m_ES tail, > correct? For either ISR or FSR, does the systematic parameterization > ansatz include uncertainty in the level of radiation (or is it not > important on the few % scale)? > > R: "photon energy loss" refers to energy loss in the detector > material. > > 5) The paper mentions Xclnu decays entering because of undetected > KL's. Do D semileptonic decays also pose a problem since these > will also give an additional undetected particle? The charged > leptons tend to be rather soft, so depending on the lepton id > criteria might not get vetoed... If these are important, have the > D s.l. branching fractions and the B->D momentum spectrum been > considered in the systematics? > > R: The requirements on the minimum lepton momentum (1 GeV) and > the lepton charge reduce the background from D s.l. decays to > a level of a few percent. > We take into account the residual contribution by varying the D s.l. > branching ratios in our assessment of systematic uncertainties. > > 6) Some idea of the effectiveness of the D*lnu veto based on > m_nu^2 would be useful to include -- both rejection factor and > signal efficiency. The shape in signal that one would expect is > not so decay. For clarity in the paper, I suggest changing the > variable name to avoid confusion with the p_nu introduced in the > previous paragraph, whose mass this variable is not... > > R: the requirement m_veto<-3 reduces the > D*lnu background by about 36% while keeping more than 90% of signal events. > > 7) Minor typo: In the paragraph and sentence beginning "To extract > the distribution in the variables...", I think "subsequently > separating" should be "subsequently separate" > > R: We changed the sentence. > > 8) Somewhat more detail on the spectral fits is warranted, since > these are a key component of the method. For example, presumably > N_u and N_u^out are normalizations for two different fit components > corresponding to decays within and without the final kinematic > region at the generator level. How are these treated in the fit? > Are they tied together by the particular theoretical model used to > evaluate the efficiency? Or, do the float independently? Nice to > know, since that couples to how one needs to consider the models > in the systematics analysis. > > R: N_u is, in fact, the number of data events in the signal region after > all cuts. N_u^out is an estimate of the contribution to N_u of signal > events reconstructed in the signal kinematic region but coming from > outside the said region. In the fit, the MC shapes of signal and N_U^out > components are forced to be the same, according to the theoretical model. > > 9) I couldn't tell how Nsl and BGsl are determined. Are these > obtained from fits to the Breco mES distribution where an additional > lepton has been required? If I haven't simply missed something, > the method should be stated in the paper. > > R: the number of background events is determined from MC simulation. > The corresponding systematic uncertainty due to our knowledge of > the background composition has been taken into account. > > 10) Minor typo: Nsl= ... and BGsl=... are the measured *numbers of* > semileptonic events and... "numbers of" is missing. > > R: We changed the sentence. > > 11) In systematics, at what level does modeling of hadronic showers > (beyond KL's) in the calculation of the X system matter? Eg., > fluctuations or splashback could result in showers that are > relatively isolated from tracks in the calorimeter, so will bias > the X calculation and therefore any efficiency or spectral shape > for Mx and P+. > > R: modeling of hadronic showers, including fluctuations and splashback > is taken into account in the GEANT 4 MC simulation. The associated > systematic uncertainties are included in what we call "detector > systematics". The combined effect due to the reconstruction of > neutral clusters in the calorimeter actually dominates the total > detector systematic uncertainty, ranging from 1.4% for Mx, > to 2.9% for Pplus, to 2.5% for Mx-q2. > > 12) In the systematics table, does {\cal B}(D) refer to D branching > fractions? Can the paper clarify how these branching fractions, > or what subset, is varied? > > R: we varied the branching fractions within their experimental errors > around the central values. We have rewritten the description > in the paper. > > 13) There's no mention of final state radiation, which I would assume > to be sizable for electrons. What effect does this radiation have > on efficiency and background smearing, and how well is it known? > What effect does radiation have on generator level quantities > (spectral shape biases), and at the 1-2% level of systematics > considered in the paper, do the kinematic regions with radiation > map well enough onto the regions the theorists have calculated > rates for without radiation? This question can be both absolute > in nature or refer simply to how the MC is treated -- for example, > one could get an inappropriate generator level q2 boundary if by > looking at the generator level (p_e + p_nu)^2 after radiation. > > R: in our analysis, FSR is simulated using PHOTOS. > We checked that the effect of FSR is negligible by studying > kinematic variables in MC samples produced with and without PHOTOS. > > 14) The paper notes specifically notes that the mix of charged > and neutral B pairs is not 50-50. Is there any systematic effect > associated with this in terms of the mass spectrum of the hadronic > system being, in reality, somewhat different, etc., particularly > when average B lifetimes are used in the end? From figure 2 and > the roughly 60/40 B+B-/B0B0bar split, it looks like there should > be enough statistics to get Vub independently from these two > samples (and the tagging, of course, allows the separation into > those subsamples). Are the Vub results from the two subsamples > consistent, and do the patterns in the different kinematic regions > manifest themselves in the same way? > > R: we checked that PBR obtained separating the samples by > the charge of the reconstructed B meson are > consistent with each other within the uncertainties and > indeed the patterns in the different kinematic regions > manifest themselves in the same way. > A measurement of PBR separately for charged and neutral > Bs is important to determine weak annihilation effects that > are currently taken into account in the theoretical models. A more > detailed study of experimental cross-feed between charged and neutral > Bs is required and will be included in the upcoming PRD. >