-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Sign convention in AFBtot observables #192
Comments
I think the reason for the different signs is just different conventions used in the literature for the Since this seems to be just a matter of convention, it is not a bug. But I agree that it can be confusing and it might make sense to think about which convention we should use in flavio for |
In the course of trying to reproduce the results of [1], viz. Figure 1 and related values in Table III of [2] for A_FB (B0->D*lnu), I seem to have identified a sign discrepancy between the SM prediction reported in [2] and that of flavio. That is,
>>> flavio.sm_prediction('AFBtot(B0->D*munu)')
-0.19969275389101449
and
>>> flavio.sm_prediction('AFBtot(B0->D*enu)')
-0.2041770212914189
whereas the corresponding values in [2] are the positive of these. It does not seem to me that the difference is a definitional one. One may seek line 360 in flavio.physics.bdecays.bvlnu.py for the offending minus sign but its presence is not apparent to me, an intermediate user of python.
Making this adjustment brings my$\Delta A_{\rm FB}$ contour into qualitative agreement with Fig. 1 of [1], which was produced using flavio, but I do not see mention of this in past issues if the authors there encountered it. Is this a bug in the code worth addressing, or does the fault lie with my understanding?
[1] = 2106.09610
[2] = 2104.02094
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: