More Like this

1. 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
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 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
4. L-Systems and the Lovász Number

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00493-025-00136-4  

   Linz, William (April 2025, Combinatorica)

   Abstract Given integers$$n> k > 0$$ $n>k>0$, and a set of integers$$L \subset [0, k-1]$$ $L\subset [0,k-1]$, anL-systemis a family of sets$$\mathcal {F}\subset \left( {\begin{array}{c}[n]\\ k\end{array}}\right) $$ $F\subset \left(\begin{array}{c}\left[n\right]\\ k\end{array}\right)$such that$$|F \cap F'| \in L$$ $|F\cap F^{\prime }|\in L$for distinct$$F, F'\in \mathcal {F}$$ $F,F^{\prime }\in F$.L-systems correspond to independent sets in a certain generalized Johnson graphG(n, k, L), so that the maximum size of anL-system is equivalent to finding the independence number of the graphG(n, k, L). TheLovász number$$\vartheta (G)$$ $\vartheta \left(G\right)$is a semidefinite programming approximation of the independence number$$\alpha $$ $\alpha$of a graphG. In this paper, we determine the leading order term of$$\vartheta (G(n, k, L))$$ $\vartheta \left(G\right(n,k,L\left)\right)$of any generalized Johnson graph withkandLfixed and$$n\rightarrow \infty $$ $n\to \infty$. As an application of this theorem, we give an explicit construction of a graphGonnvertices with a large gap between the Lovász number and the Shannon capacityc(G). Specifically, we prove that for any$$\epsilon > 0$$ $ϵ>0$, for infinitely manynthere is a generalized Johnson graphGonnvertices which has ratio$$\vartheta (G)/c(G) = \Omega (n^{1-\epsilon })$$ $\vartheta \left(G\right)/c\left(G\right)=\Omega \left(n^{1-ϵ}\right)$, which improves on all known constructions. The graphGa fortiorialso has ratio$$\vartheta (G)/\alpha (G) = \Omega (n^{1-\epsilon })$$ $\vartheta \left(G\right)/\alpha \left(G\right)=\Omega \left(n^{1-ϵ}\right)$, which greatly improves on the best known explicit construction. 

   more » « less
5. Measurements of the branching fractions of $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0 $$, $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0\eta $$, and $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\eta}^{\prime } $$ and asymmetry parameter of $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0 $$

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2024)045  

   Adachi, I; Aggarwal, L; Aihara, H; Akopov, N; Aloisio, A; Althubiti, N; Anh_Ky, N; Asner, D M; Atmacan, H; Aushev, T; et al (October 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> We present a study of$$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0\eta $$ ${\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0\eta$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\eta}^{\prime } $$ ${\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\eta }^{\prime }$decays using the Belle and Belle II data samples, which have integrated luminosities of 980 fb⁻¹and 426 fb⁻¹, respectively. We measure the following relative branching fractions$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0\right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.48\pm 0.02\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.03\left(\textrm{syst}\right),\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0\eta \right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.11\pm 0.01\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.01\left(\textrm{syst}\right),\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\eta}^{\prime}\right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.08\pm 0.02\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.01\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0\right)/B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)=0.48\pm 0.02\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.03\left(\text{syst}\right),\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0\eta \right)/B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)=0.11\pm 0.01\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.01\left(\text{syst}\right),\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\eta }^{\prime }\right)/B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)=0.08\pm 0.02\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.01\left(\text{syst}\right)\end{array}$ for the first time, where the uncertainties are statistical (stat) and systematic (syst). By multiplying by the branching fraction of the normalization mode,$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)$, we obtain the following absolute branching fraction results$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0\right)=\left(6.9\pm 0.3\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.5\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\pm 1.3\left(\operatorname{norm}\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0\eta \right)=\left(1.6\pm 0.2\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.2\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\pm 0.3\left(\operatorname{norm}\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\varXi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\eta}^{\prime}\right)=\left(1.2\pm 0.3\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.1\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\pm 0.2\left(\operatorname{norm}\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0\right)=\left(6.9\pm 0.3\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.5\left(\text{syst}\right)\pm 1.3\left(norm\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0\eta \right)=\left(1.6\pm 0.2\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.2\left(\text{syst}\right)\pm 0.3\left(norm\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\eta }^{\prime }\right)=\left(1.2\pm 0.3\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.1\left(\text{syst}\right)\pm 0.2\left(norm\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\end{array}$ where the third uncertainties are from$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)$. The asymmetry parameter for$$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0$is measured to be$$ \alpha \left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0\right)=-0.90\pm 0.15\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.23\left(\textrm{syst}\right) $$ $\alpha \left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0\right)=-0.90\pm 0.15\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.23\left(\text{syst}\right)$. 

   more » « less