MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simultaneous explanation of the R K and R ( D (⁎) ) puzzles

2015· article· en· W1495113444 on OpenAlexafffund
Bhubanjyoti Bhattacharya, Alakabha Datta, David London, Shanmuka Shivashankara

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Letters B · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsPhysics beyond the Standard ModelParticle physicsLeptonUniversality (dynamical systems)Operator (biology)Bar (unit)Gauge groupGauge theoryQuantum mechanicsElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At present, there are several hints of lepton flavor non-universality. The LHCb Collaboration has measured RK≡B(B+→K+μ+μ−)/B(B+→K+e+e−), and the BaBar Collaboration has measured R(D(⁎))≡B(B¯→D(⁎)+τ−ν¯τ)/B(B¯→D(⁎)+ℓ−ν¯ℓ) (ℓ=e,μ). In all cases, the experimental results differ from the standard model predictions by 2–3σ. Recently, an explanation of the RK puzzle was proposed in which new physics (NP) generates a neutral-current operator involving only third-generation particles. Now, assuming the scale of NP is much larger than the weak scale, this NP operator must be made invariant under the full SU(3)C×SU(2)L×U(1)Y gauge group. In this Letter, we note that, when this is done, a new charged-current operator can appear, and this can explain the R(D(⁎)) puzzle. A more precise measurement of the double ratio R(D)/R(D⁎) can rule out this model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations287
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics Letters BSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207