More Like this

1. Approaching Argyres-Douglas theories

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2024)082  

   Bharadwaj, Sriram; D’Hoker, Eric (June 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> The Seiberg-Witten solution to four-dimensional$$ \mathcal{N} $$ $N$= 2 super-Yang-Mills theory with gauge group SU(N) and without hypermultiplets is used to investigate the neighborhood of the maximal Argyres-Douglas points of type$$ \left({\mathfrak{a}}_1,{\mathfrak{a}}_{N-1}\right) $$ $\left(a_1,a_{N-1}\right)$. A convergent series expansion for the Seiberg-Witten periods near the Argyres-Douglas points is obtained by analytic continuation of the series expansion around theℤ_2Nsymmetric point derived in arXiv:2208.11502. Along with direct integration of the Picard-Fuchs equations for the periods, the expansion is used to determine the location of the walls of marginal stability for SU(3). The intrinsic periods and Kähler potential of the$$ \left({\mathfrak{a}}_1,{\mathfrak{a}}_{N-1}\right) $$ $\left(a_1,a_{N-1}\right)$superconformal fixed point are computed by letting the strong coupling scale tend to infinity. We conjecture that the resulting intrinsic Kähler potential is positive definite and convex, with a unique minimum at the Argyres-Douglas point, provided only intrinsic Coulomb branch operators with unitary scaling dimensions ∆>1 acquire a vacuum expectation value, and provide both analytical and numerical evidence in support of this conjecture. In all the low rank examples considered here, it is found that turning on moduli dual to ∆ ≤ 1 operators spoils the positivity and convexity of the intrinsic Kähler potential. 

   more » « less
2. 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
3. Measurement of CP violation in B0 → D+D− and $$ {\textrm{B}}_{\textrm{s}}^0 $$ → $$ {\textrm{D}}_{\textrm{s}}^{+}{\textrm{D}}_{\textrm{s}}^{-} $$ decays

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2025)061  

   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 (January 2025, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> A time-dependent, flavour-tagged measurement ofCPviolation is performed withB⁰→ D⁺D⁻and$$ {B}_s^0 $$ $B_s^0$→$$ {D}_s^{+}{D}_s^{-} $$ $D_s^{+}{D}_s^{-}$decays, using data collected by the LHCb detector in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 6 fb⁻¹. InB⁰→ D⁺D⁻decays theCP-violation parameters are measured to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}{S}_{D^{+}{D}^{-}}=-0.552\pm 0.100\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.010\left(\textrm{syst}\right),\\ {}{C}_{D^{+}{D}^{-}}=0.128\pm 0.103\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.010\left(\textrm{syst}\right).\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}{S}_{D^{+}{D}^{-}}=-0.552\pm 0.100\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.010\left(\text{syst}\right),\\ C_{D^{+}{D}^{-}}=0.128\pm 0.103\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.010\left(\text{syst}\right).\end{array}$ In$$ {B}_s^0 $$ $B_s^0$→$$ {D}_s^{+}{D}_s^{-} $$ $D_s^{+}{D}_s^{-}$decays theCP-violating parameter formulation in terms ofϕ_sand|λ|results in$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}{\phi}_s=-0.086\pm 0.106\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.028\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\textrm{rad},\\ {}\mid {\lambda}_{D_s^{+}{D}_s^{-}}\mid =1.145\pm 0.126\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.031\left(\textrm{syst}\right).\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}{\varphi }_s=-0.086\pm 0.106\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.028\left(\text{syst}\right)\mathrm{rad},\\ \mid {\lambda }_{D_s^{+}{D}_s^{-}}\mid =1.145\pm 0.126\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.031\left(\text{syst}\right).\end{array}$ These results represent the most precise single measurement of theCP-violation parameters in their respective channels. For the first time in a single measurement,CPsymmetry is observed to be violated inB⁰→ D⁺D⁻decays with a significance exceeding six standard deviations. 

   more » « less
4. On a Traveling Salesman Problem for Points in the Unit Cube

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-024-01257-w  

   Balogh, József; Clemen, Felix Christian; Dumitrescu, Adrian (September 2024, Algorithmica)

   Abstract LetXbe ann-element point set in thek-dimensional unit cube$$[0,1]^k$$ ${[0,1]}^k$where$$k \ge 2$$ $k\ge 2$. According to an old result of Bollobás and Meir (Oper Res Lett 11:19–21, 1992) , there exists a cycle (tour)$$x_1, x_2, \ldots , x_n$$ $x_1,x_2,\dots ,x_n$through thenpoints, such that$$\left( \sum _{i=1}^n |x_i - x_{i+1}|^k \right) ^{1/k} \le c_k$$ ${\left({\sum }_{i=1}^n,{|x_i-x_{i+1}|}^k\right)}^{1/k}\le c_k$, where$$|x-y|$$ $|x-y|$is the Euclidean distance betweenxandy, and$$c_k$$ $c_k$is an absolute constant that depends only onk, where$$x_{n+1} \equiv x_1$$ $x_{n+1}\equiv x_1$. From the other direction, for every$$k \ge 2$$ $k\ge 2$and$$n \ge 2$$ $n\ge 2$, there existnpoints in$$[0,1]^k$$ ${[0,1]}^k$, such that their shortest tour satisfies$$\left( \sum _{i=1}^n |x_i - x_{i+1}|^k \right) ^{1/k} = 2^{1/k} \cdot \sqrt{k}$$ ${\left({\sum }_{i=1}^n,{|x_i-x_{i+1}|}^k\right)}^{1/k}=2^{1/k}·\sqrt{k}$. For the plane, the best constant is$$c_2=2$$ $c_2=2$and this is the only exact value known. Bollobás and Meir showed that one can take$$c_k = 9 \left( \frac{2}{3} \right) ^{1/k} \cdot \sqrt{k}$$ $c_k=9{\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)}^{1/k}·\sqrt{k}$for every$$k \ge 3$$ $k\ge 3$and conjectured that the best constant is$$c_k = 2^{1/k} \cdot \sqrt{k}$$ $c_k=2^{1/k}·\sqrt{k}$, for every$$k \ge 2$$ $k\ge 2$. Here we significantly improve the upper bound and show that one can take$$c_k = 3 \sqrt{5} \left( \frac{2}{3} \right) ^{1/k} \cdot \sqrt{k}$$ $c_k=3\sqrt{5}{\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)}^{1/k}·\sqrt{k}$or$$c_k = 2.91 \sqrt{k} \ (1+o_k(1))$$ $c_k=2.91\sqrt{k}(1+o_k\left(1\right))$. Our bounds are constructive. We also show that$$c_3 \ge 2^{7/6}$$ $c_3\ge 2^{7/6}$, which disproves the conjecture for$$k=3$$ $k=3$. Connections to matching problems, power assignment problems, related problems, including algorithms, are discussed in this context. A slightly revised version of the Bollobás–Meir conjecture is proposed. 

   more » « less
5. 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