<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math>: Detecting and discriminating new physics in<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mtext mathvariant="normal">−</mml:mtext><mml:msubsup><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:math>mixing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If the weak phase of ${B}_{s}^{0}\mathrm{\text{\ensuremath{-}}}{\overline{B}}_{s}^{0}$ mixing ($2{\ensuremath{\beta}}_{s}$) is found to be significantly different from zero, this is a clear signal of new physics (NP). However, if such a signal is found, we would like an unambiguous determination of $2{\ensuremath{\beta}}_{s}$ in order to ascertain which NP models could be responsible. In addition, in the presence of NP, the width difference $\ensuremath{\Delta}{\ensuremath{\Gamma}}_{s}$ between the two ${B}_{s}$ mass eigenstates can be positive or negative, and ideally this sign ambiguity should be resolved experimentally. Finally, in order to see if the NP is contributing to ${\ensuremath{\Gamma}}_{12}^{s}$ in addition to ${M}_{12}^{s}$, the precise measurement of $|{\ensuremath{\Gamma}}_{12}^{s}|$ is crucial. In this paper, we consider several different methods of measuring $2{\ensuremath{\beta}}_{s}$ using penguin-free two- and three-body decays with $\overline{b}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\overline{c}u\overline{s}$ and $\overline{b}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\overline{u}c\overline{s}$ transitions. We find that the most promising of these is a time-dependent Dalitz-plot analysis of ${B}_{s}^{0}({\overline{B}}_{s}^{0})\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{D}_{CP}^{0}K\overline{K}$. With this decay, the unambiguous measurements of $2{\ensuremath{\beta}}_{s}$ and $\ensuremath{\Delta}{\ensuremath{\Gamma}}_{s}$ are possible, and the weak phase $\ensuremath{\gamma}$ can also be extracted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.645 | 0.668 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".