More Like this

1. Examples of non-Dini domains with large singular sets

   https://doi.org/10.1515/ans-2022-0058  

   Kenig, Carlos; Zhao, Zihui (January 2023, Advanced Nonlinear Studies)

   Abstract Let u u be a nontrivial harmonic function in a domain D ⊂ R d D\subset {{\mathbb{R}}}^{d} , which vanishes on an open set of the boundary. In a recent article, we showed that if D D is a C 1 {C}^{1} -Dini domain, then, within the open set, the singular set of u u , defined as { X ∈ D ¯ : u ( X ) = 0 = ∣ ∇ u ( X ) ∣ } \left\{X\in \overline{D}:u\left(X)=0=| \nabla u\left(X)| \right\} , has finite ( d − 2 ) \left(d-2) -dimensional Hausdorff measure. In this article, we show that the assumption of C 1 {C}^{1} -Dini domains is sharp, by constructing a large class of non-Dini (but almost Dini) domains whose singular sets have infinite ℋ d − 2 {{\mathcal{ {\mathcal H} }}}^{d-2} -measures. 

   more » « less
2. Search for CP violation in $$ {D}_{(s)}^{+}\to {h}^{+}{\pi}^0 $$ and $$ {D}_{(s)}^{+}\to {h}^{+}\eta $$ decays

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2021)019  

   Aaij, R.; Abellán Beteta, C.; Ackernley, T.; Adeva, B.; Adinolfi, M.; Afsharnia, H.; Aidala, C. A.; Aiola, S.; Ajaltouni, Z.; Akar, S.; et al (June 2021, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A bstract Searches for CP violation in the two-body decays $$ {D}_{(s)}^{+}\to {h}^{+}{\pi}^0 $$ D s + → h + π 0 and $$ {D}_{(s)}^{+}\to {h}^{+}\eta $$ D s + → h + η (where h + denotes a π + or K + meson) are performed using pp collision data collected by the LHCb experiment corresponding to either 9 fb − 1 or 6 fb − 1 of integrated luminosity. The π 0 and η mesons are reconstructed using the e + e − γ final state, which can proceed as three-body decays π 0 → e + e − γ and η → e + e − γ , or via the two-body decays π 0 → γγ and η → γγ followed by a photon conversion. The measurements are made relative to the control modes $$ {D}_{(s)}^{+}\to {K}_{\mathrm{S}}^0{h}^{+} $$ D s + → K S 0 h + to cancel the production and detection asymmetries. The CP asymmetries are measured to be $$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{A}}_{CP}\left({D}^{+}\to {\pi}^{+}{\pi}^0\right)=\left(-1.3\pm 0.9\pm 0.6\right)\%,\\ {}{\mathcal{A}}_{CP}\left({D}^{+}\to {K}^{+}{\pi}^0\right)=\left(-3.2\pm 4.7\pm 2.1\right)\%,\\ {}\begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{A}}_{CP}\left({D}^{+}\to {\pi}^{+}\eta \right)=\left(-0.2\pm 0.8\pm 0.4\right)\%,\\ {}{\mathcal{A}}_{CP}\left({D}^{+}\to {K}^{+}\eta \right)=\left(-6\pm 10\pm 4\right)\%,\\ {}\begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{A}}_{CP}\left({D}_s^{+}\to {K}^{+}{\pi}^0\right)=\left(-0.8\pm 3.9\pm 1.2\right)\%,\\ {}\begin{array}{c}{\mathcal{A}}_{CP}\left({D}_s^{+}\to {\pi}^{+}\eta \right)=\left(0.8\pm 0.7\pm 0.5\right)\%,\\ {}{\mathcal{A}}_{CP}\left({D}_s^{+}\to {K}^{+}\eta \right)=\left(0.9\pm 3.7\pm 1.1\right)\%,\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}} $$ A CP D + → π + π 0 = − 1.3 ± 0.9 ± 0.6 % , A CP D + → K + π 0 = − 3.2 ± 4.7 ± 2.1 % , A CP D + → π + η = − 0.2 ± 0.8 ± 0.4 % , A CP D + → K + η = − 6 ± 10 ± 4 % , A CP D s + → K + π 0 = − 0.8 ± 3.9 ± 1.2 % , A CP D s + → π + η = 0.8 ± 0.7 ± 0.5 % , A CP D s + → K + η = 0.9 ± 3.7 ± 1.1 % , where the first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic. These results are consistent with no CP violation and mostly constitute the most precise measurements of $$ {\mathcal{A}}_{CP} $$ A CP in these decay modes to date. 

   more » « less
3. Measurement of the inclusive branching fractions for $${B}_{s}^{0}$$ decays into D mesons via hadronic tagging

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2025)114  

   Adachi, I; Aggarwal, L; Ahmed, H; Aihara, H; Akopov, N; Aloisio, A; Al_Said, S; Althubiti, N; Anh_Ky, N; Asner, D M; et al (April 2025, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> We report measurements of the absolute branching fractions$$\mathcal{B}\left({B}_{s}^{0}\to {D}_{s}^{\pm }X\right)$$,$$\mathcal{B}\left({B}_{s}^{0}\to {D}^{0}/{\overline{D} }^{0}X\right)$$, and$$\mathcal{B}\left({B}_{s}^{0}\to {D}^{\pm }X\right)$$, where the latter is measured for the first time. The results are based on a 121.4 fb⁻¹data sample collected at the Υ(10860) resonance by the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energye⁺e⁻collider. We reconstruct one$${B}_{s}^{0}$$meson in$${e}^{+}{e}^{-}\to \Upsilon\left(10860\right)\to {B}_{s}^{*}{\overline{B} }_{s}^{*}$$events and measure yields of$${D}_{s}^{+}$$,D⁰, andD⁺mesons in the rest of the event. We obtain$$\mathcal{B}\left({B}_{s}^{0}\to {D}_{s}^{\pm }X\right)=\left(68.6\pm 7.2\pm 4.0\right)\%$$,$$\mathcal{B}\left({B}_{s}^{0}\to {D}^{0}/{\overline{D} }^{0}X\right)=\left(21.5\pm 6.1\pm 1.8\right)\%$$, and$$\mathcal{B}\left({B}_{s}^{0}\to {D}^{\pm }X\right)=\left(12.6\pm 4.6\pm 1.3\right)\%$$, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. Averaging with previous Belle measurements gives$$\mathcal{B}\left({B}_{s}^{0}\to {D}_{s}^{\pm }X\right)=\left(63.4\pm 4.5\pm 2.2\right)\%$$and$$\mathcal{B}\left({B}_{s}^{0}\to {D}^{0}/{\overline{D} }^{0}X\right)=\left(23.9\pm 4.1\pm 1.8\right)\%$$. For the$${B}_{s}^{0}$$production fraction at the Υ(10860), we find$${f}_{s}=\left({21.4}_{-1.7}^{+1.5}\right)\%$$. 

   more » « less
4. Measurements of branching fractions and asymmetry parameters of $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to \Lambda {\overline{K}}^{\ast 0} $$, $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^0{\overline{K}}^{\ast 0} $$, and $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^{+}{K}^{\ast -} $$ decays at Belle

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2021)160  

   Jia, S.; Tang, S. S.; Shen, C. P.; Adachi, I.; Aihara, H.; Al Said, S.; Asner, D. M.; Aulchenko, V.; Aushev, T.; Ayad, R.; et al (June 2021, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A bstract Using a data sample of 980 fb − 1 collected with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy e + e − collider, we study the processes of $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to \Lambda {\overline{K}}^{\ast 0} $$ Ξ c 0 → Λ K ¯ ∗ 0 , $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^0{\overline{K}}^{\ast 0} $$ Ξ c 0 → Σ 0 K ¯ ∗ 0 , and $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^{+}{K}^{\ast -} $$ Ξ c 0 → Σ + K ∗ − for the first time. The relative branching ratios to the normalization mode of $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+} $$ Ξ c 0 → Ξ − π + are measured to be $$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to \Lambda {\overline{K}}^{\ast 0}\right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.18\pm 0.02\left(\mathrm{stat}.\right)\pm 0.01\left(\mathrm{syst}.\right),\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^0{\overline{K}}^{\ast 0}\right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.69\pm 0.03\left(\mathrm{stat}.\right)\pm 0.03\left(\mathrm{syst}.\right),\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^{+}{K}^{\ast -}\right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.34\pm 0.06\left(\mathrm{stat}.\right)\pm 0.02\left(\mathrm{syst}.\right),\end{array}} $$ B Ξ c 0 → Λ K ¯ ∗ 0 / B Ξ c 0 → Ξ − π + = 0.18 ± 0.02 stat . ± 0.01 syst . , B Ξ c 0 → Σ 0 K ¯ ∗ 0 / B Ξ c 0 → Ξ − π + = 0.69 ± 0.03 stat . ± 0.03 syst . , B Ξ c 0 → Σ + K ∗ − / B Ξ c 0 → Ξ − π + = 0.34 ± 0.06 stat . ± 0.02 syst . , where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively. We obtain $$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to \Lambda {\overline{K}}^{\ast 0}\right)=\left(3.3\pm 0.3\left(\mathrm{stat}.\right)\pm 0.2\left(\mathrm{syst}.\right)\pm 1.0\left(\mathrm{ref}.\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^0{\overline{K}}^{\ast 0}\right)=\left(12.4\pm 0.5\left(\mathrm{stat}.\right)\pm 0.5\left(\mathrm{syst}.\right)\pm 3.6\left(\mathrm{ref}.\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^{+}{K}^{\ast 0}\right)=\left(6.1\pm 1.0\left(\mathrm{stat}.\right)\pm 0.4\left(\mathrm{syst}.\right)\pm 1.8\left(\mathrm{ref}.\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\end{array}} $$ B Ξ c 0 → Λ K ¯ ∗ 0 = 3.3 ± 0.3 stat . ± 0.2 syst . ± 1.0 ref . × 10 − 3 , B Ξ c 0 → Σ 0 K ¯ ∗ 0 = 12.4 ± 0.5 stat . ± 0.5 syst . ± 3.6 ref . × 10 − 3 , B Ξ c 0 → Σ + K ∗ 0 = 6.1 ± 1.0 stat . ± 0.4 syst . ± 1.8 ref . × 10 − 3 , where the uncertainties are statistical, systematic, and from $$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ B Ξ c 0 → Ξ − π + , respectively. The asymmetry parameters $$ \alpha \left({\Xi}_c^0\to \Lambda {\overline{K}}^{\ast 0}\right) $$ α Ξ c 0 → Λ K ¯ ∗ 0 and $$ \alpha \left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Sigma}^{+}{K}^{\ast -}\right) $$ α Ξ c 0 → Σ + K ∗ − are 0 . 15 ± 0 . 22(stat . ) ± 0 . 04(syst . ) and − 0 . 52 ± 0 . 30(stat . ) ± 0 . 02(syst . ), respectively, where the uncertainties are statistical followed by systematic. 

   more » « less
5. More accurate $$ \sigma \left(\mathcal{GG}\to h\right),\Gamma \left(h\to \mathcal{GG},\mathcal{AA},\overline{\Psi}\Psi \right) $$ and Higgs width results via the geoSMEFT

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2024)170  

   Martin, Adam; Trott, Michael (January 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> We develop Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) predictions ofσ($$ \mathcal{GG} $$ $\mathrm{GG}$→h), Γ(h→$$ \mathcal{GG} $$ $\mathrm{GG}$), Γ(h→$$ \mathcal{AA} $$ $\mathrm{AA}$) to incorporate full two loop Standard Model results at the amplitude level, in conjunction with dimension eight SMEFT corrections. We simultaneously report consistent Γ(h→$$ \overline{\Psi}\Psi $$ $\overline{\Psi }\Psi$) results including leading QCD corrections and dimension eight SMEFT corrections. This extends the predictions of the former processes Γ, σto a full set of corrections at$$ \mathcal{O}\left({\overline{v}}_T^2/{\varLambda}^2{\left(16{\pi}^2\right)}^2\right) $$ $O\left({\overline{v}}_T^2/{\Lambda }^2{\left(16{\pi }^2\right)}^2\right)$and$$ \mathcal{O}\left({\overline{v}}_T^4/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ $O\left({\overline{v}}_T^4/{\Lambda }^4\right)$, where$$ {\overline{v}}_T $$ ${\overline{v}}_T$is the electroweak scale vacuum expectation value and Λ is the cut off scale of the SMEFT. Throughout, cross consistency between the operator and loop expansions is maintained by the use of the geometric SMEFT formalism. For Γ(h→$$ \overline{\Psi}\Psi $$ $\overline{\Psi }\Psi$), we include results at$$ \mathcal{O}\left({\overline{v}}_T^2/{\Lambda}^2\left(16{\pi}^2\right)\right) $$ $O\left({\overline{v}}_T^2/{\Lambda }^2\left(16{\pi }^2\right)\right)$in the limit where subleadingm_Ψ→ 0 corrections are neglected. We clarify how gauge invariant SMEFT renormalization counterterms combine with the Standard Model counter terms in higher order SMEFT calculations when the Background Field Method is used. We also update the prediction of the total Higgs width in the SMEFT to consistently include some of these higher order perturbative effects. 

   more » « less