More Like this

1. Measurement of CP asymmetry in $$ {\textrm{B}}_{\textrm{s}}^0\to {\textrm{D}}_{\textrm{s}}^{\mp }{\textrm{K}}^{\pm } $$ decays

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2025)139  

   Aaij, R; Abdelmotteleb, A_S W; Abellan_Beteta, C; Abudinén, F; Ackernley, T; Adefisoye, A A; Adeva, B; Adinolfi, M; Adlarson, P; Agapopoulou, C; et al (March 2025, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> A measurement of theCP-violating parameters in$$ {B}_s^0\boldsymbol{\to}{D}_s^{\mp }{K}^{\pm} $$ $B_s^0\to D_s^{\mp }{K}^{\pm }$decays is reported, based on the analysis of proton-proton collision data collected by the LHCb experiment corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 6 fb⁻¹at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The measured parameters are obtained with a decay-time dependent analysis yieldingC_f= 0.791 ± 0.061 ± 0.022,$$ {A}_f^{\Delta \Gamma} $$ $A_f^{\text{∆}\Gamma }$= −0.051 ± 0.134 ± 0.058,$$ {A}_{\overline{f}}^{\Delta \Gamma} $$ $A_{\overline{f}}^{\text{∆}\Gamma }$= −0.303 ± 0.125 ± 0.055,S_f= −0.571 ± 0.084 ± 0.023 and$$ {S}_{\overline{f}} $$ $S_{\overline{f}}$= −0.503 ± 0.084 ± 0.025, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. This corresponds to CP violation in the interference between mixing and decay of about 8.6σ. Together with the value of the$$ {B}_s^0 $$ $B_s^0$mixing phase −2β_s, these parameters are used to obtain a measurement of the CKM angleγequal to (74 ± 12)° modulo 180°, where the uncertainty contains both statistical and systematic contributions. This result is combined with the previous LHCb measurement in this channel using 3 fb⁻¹resulting in a determination of$$ \gamma ={\left({81}_{-11}^{+12}\right)}^{\circ } $$ $\gamma ={\left({81}_{-11}^{+12}\right)}^{\circ }$. 

   more » « less
2. A case study of SMEFT $$ \mathcal{O}\left(1/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ effects in diboson processes: pp → W±(ℓ±ν)γ

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)223  

   Martin, Adam (May 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> In this paper we explorepp→W^±(ℓ^±ν)γto$$ \mathcal{O}\left(1/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ $O\left(1/{\Lambda }^4\right)$in the SMEFT expansion. Calculations to this order are necessary to properly capture SMEFT contributions that grow with energy, as the interference between energy-enhanced SMEFT effects at$$ \mathcal{O}\left(1/{\Lambda}^2\right) $$ $O\left(1/{\Lambda }^2\right)$and the Standard Model is suppressed. We find that there are several dimension eight operators that interfere with the Standard Model and lead to the same energy growth, ~$$ \mathcal{O}\left({E}^4/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ $O\left(E^4/{\Lambda }^4\right)$, as dimension six squared. While energy-enhanced SMEFT contributions are a main focus, our calculation includes the complete set of$$ \mathcal{O}\left(1/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ $O\left(1/{\Lambda }^4\right)$SMEFT effects consistent with U(3)⁵flavor symmetry. Additionally, we include the decay of theW^±→ ℓ^±ν, making the calculation actually$$ \overline{q}{q}^{\prime}\to {\ell}^{\pm}\nu \gamma $$ $\overline{q}{q}^{\prime }\to {\ell }^{\pm }\mathrm{\nu \gamma }$. As such, we are able to study the impact of non-resonant SMEFT operators, such as$$ \left({L}^{\dagger }{\overline{\sigma}}^{\mu }{\tau}^IL\right)\left({Q}^{\dagger }{\overline{\sigma}}^{\nu }{\tau}^IQ\right) $$ $\left(L^{†}{\overline{\sigma }}^{\mu }{\tau }^{I}L\right)\left(Q^{†}{\overline{\sigma }}^{\nu }{\tau }^{I}Q\right)$B_μν, which contribute to$$ \overline{q}{q}^{\prime}\to {\ell}^{\pm}\nu \gamma $$ $\overline{q}{q}^{\prime }\to {\ell }^{\pm }\mathrm{\nu \gamma }$directly and not to$$ \overline{q}{q}^{\prime}\to {W}^{\pm}\gamma $$ $\overline{q}{q}^{\prime }\to W^{\pm }\gamma$. We show several distributions to illustrate the shape differences of the different contributions. 

   more » « less
3. Search for the $$ {B}_s^0 $$ → μ+μ−γ decay

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2024)101  

   Aaij, R; Abdelmotteleb, A_S W; Abellan_Beteta, C; Abudinén, F; Ackernley, T; Adefisoye, A A; Adeva, B; Adinolfi, M; Adlarson, P; Agapopoulou, C; et al (July 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> A search for the fully reconstructed$$ {B}_s^0 $$ $B_s^0$→ μ⁺μ⁻γdecay is performed at the LHCb experiment using proton-proton collisions at$$ \sqrt{s} $$ $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 5.4 fb⁻¹. No significant signal is found and upper limits on the branching fraction in intervals of the dimuon mass are set$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{cc}\mathcal{B}\left({B}_s^0\to {\mu}^{+}{\mu}^{-}\gamma \right)<4.2\times {10}^{-8},& m\left({\mu}^{+}{\mu}^{-}\right)\in \left[2{m}_{\mu },1.70\right]\textrm{GeV}/{c}^2,\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({B}_s^0\to {\mu}^{+}{\mu}^{-}\gamma \right)<7.7\times {10}^{-8},&\ m\left({\mu}^{+}{\mu}^{-}\right)\in \left[\textrm{1.70,2.88}\right]\textrm{GeV}/{c}^2,\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({B}_s^0\to {\mu}^{+}{\mu}^{-}\gamma \right)<4.2\times {10}^{-8},& m\left({\mu}^{+}{\mu}^{-}\right)\in \left[3.92,{m}_{B_s^0}\right]\textrm{GeV}/{c}^2,\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{cc}B\left(B_s^0\to {\mu }^{+}{\mu }^{-}\gamma \right)<4.2\times {10}^{-8},& m\left({\mu }^{+}{\mu }^{-}\right)\in \left(2m_{\mu },1.70\right)\mathrm{GeV}/c^2,\\ B\left(B_s^0\to {\mu }^{+}{\mu }^{-}\gamma \right)<7.7\times {10}^{-8},& m\left({\mu }^{+}{\mu }^{-}\right)\in \left(\mathrm{1.70,\; 2.88}\right)\mathrm{GeV}/c^2,\\ B\left(B_s^0\to {\mu }^{+}{\mu }^{-}\gamma \right)<4.2\times {10}^{-8},& m\left({\mu }^{+}{\mu }^{-}\right)\in \left(3.92,m_{B_s^0}\right)\mathrm{GeV}/c^2,\end{array}$ at 95% confidence level. Additionally, upper limits are set on the branching fraction in the [2m_μ,1.70] GeV/c²dimuon mass region excluding the contribution from the intermediateϕ(1020) meson, and in the region combining all dimuon-mass intervals. 

   more » « less
4. Observations of the singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays $$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$, $$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$, and $$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ at Belle and Belle II

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2025)061  

   Adachi, I; Aggarwal, L; Akopov, N; Alhakami, M; Aloisio, A; Althubiti, N; Anh_Ky, N; Asner, D M; Atmacan, H; Aushev, T; et al (March 2025, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> Using data samples of 983.0 fb⁻¹and 427.9 fb⁻¹accumulated with the Belle and Belle II detectors operating at the KEKB and SuperKEKB asymmetric-energye⁺e⁻colliders, singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}$are observed for the first time. The ratios of branching fractions of$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}$relative to that of$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$are measured to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(2.47\pm 0.16\pm 0.07\right)\%,\\ {}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+}\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(1.56\pm 0.14\pm 0.09\right)\%,\\ {}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+}\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(4.13\pm 0.26\pm 0.22\right)\%.\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}\frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(2.47\pm 0.16\pm 0.07\right)\%,\\ \frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(1.56\pm 0.14\pm 0.09\right)\%,\\ \frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(4.13\pm 0.26\pm 0.22\right)\%.\end{array}$ Multiplying these values by the branching fraction of the normalization channel,$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(2.9\pm 1.3\right)\% $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(2.9\pm 1.3\right)\%$, the absolute branching fractions are determined to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)=\left(7.16\pm 0.46\pm 0.20\pm 3.21\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(4.52\pm 0.41\pm 0.26\pm 2.03\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(1.20\pm 0.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.54\right)\times {10}^{-3}.\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)=\left(7.16\pm 0.46\pm 0.20\pm 3.21\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(4.52\pm 0.41\pm 0.26\pm 2.03\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(1.20\pm 0.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.54\right)\times {10}^{-3}.\end{array}$ The first and second uncertainties above are statistical and systematic, respectively, while the third ones arise from the uncertainty in$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)$. 

   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