MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W328660133 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.112001

Analysis of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>π</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msub><mml:mi>ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math>and<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>π</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>ν</mml:mi><mml:mi>μ</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math>semileptonic decays

2010· article· lv· W328660133 on OpenAlexaff
R. A. Briere, H. Vogel, P. U. E. Onyisi, J. L. Rosner, J. Alexander, D. G. Cassel, Sudipta Das, R. Ehrlich, L. Fields, L. Gibbons, S. W. Gray, D. L. Hartill, B. K. Heltsley, J. M. Hunt, D. L. Kreinick, В. Е. Кузнецов, James Ledoux, J. R. Patterson, D. Peterson, D. Riley, A. Rýd, A. J. Sadoff, X. Shi, W. Sun, J. Yelton, P. Rubin, N. Lowrey, S. Mehrabyan, M. Selen, J. Wiss, M. Kornicer, R. E. Mitchell, M. R. Shepherd, C. M. Tarbert, D. Besson, T. K. Pedlar, J. Xavier, D. Cronin-Hennessy, J. Hietala, P. Zweber, S. Dobbs, Z. Metreveli, K. K. Seth, X. Ting, A. Tomaradze, S. Brisbane, J. Libby, L. M. Garcia Martin, A. Powell, P. Spradlin, G. Wilkinson, H. Méndez, Jun Ge, D. H. Miller, I. P. J. Shipsey, B. Xin, G. S. Adams, D. Hu, B. Moziak, J. Napolitano, K. M. Ecklund, J. Insler, H. Muramatsu, C. S. Park, E. H. Thorndike, F. Yang, S. Ricciardi, C. Thomas, M. Artuso, S. Blusk, S. Khalil, R. Mountain, T. Skwarnicki, S. Stone, J. C. Wang, L. M. Zhang, G. Bonvicini, D. Cinabro, A. Lincoln, M. J. Smith, Peng Zhou, J. Zhu, P. Naik, Jonas Rademacker, D. M. Asner, K. W. Edwards, J. Reed, K. Randrianarivony, Arianne Robichaud, G. Tatishvili, E. J. White

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2010
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsHelicityPhysicsElectron–positron annihilationParticle physicsQuantum chromodynamicsAmplitudeBranching fractionAnalytical Chemistry (journal)HadronChemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a large sample ($\ensuremath{\approx}11800$ events) of ${D}^{+}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{K}^{\ensuremath{-}}{\ensuremath{\pi}}^{+}{e}^{+}{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{e}$ and ${D}^{+}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{K}^{\ensuremath{-}}{\ensuremath{\pi}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{\ensuremath{\mu}}$ decays collected by the CLEO-c detector running at the $\ensuremath{\psi}(3770)$, we measure the helicity basis form factors free from the assumptions of spectroscopic pole dominance and provide new, accurate measurements of the absolute branching fractions for ${D}^{+}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\overline{K}}^{*0}{e}^{+}{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{e}$ and ${D}^{+}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\overline{K}}^{*0}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{\ensuremath{\mu}}$ decays. We find branching fractions which are consistent with previous world averages. Our measured helicity basis form factors are consistent with the spectroscopic pole dominance predictions for the three main helicity basis form factors describing ${D}^{+}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\overline{K}}^{*0}{\ensuremath{\ell}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{\ensuremath{\ell}}$ decay. The ability to analyze ${D}^{+}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{K}^{\ensuremath{-}}{\ensuremath{\pi}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{\ensuremath{\mu}}$ allows us to make the first nonparametric measurements of the mass-suppressed form factor. Our result is inconsistent with existing lattice QCD calculations. Finally, we measure the form factor that controls nonresonant $s$-wave interference with the ${D}^{+}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}{\overline{K}}^{*0}{\ensuremath{\ell}}^{+}{\ensuremath{\nu}}_{\ensuremath{\ell}}$ amplitude and search for evidence of possible additional nonresonant $d$- or $f$-wave interference with the ${\overline{K}}^{*0}$.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2700.222

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 head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology→Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies→French-language works237,207→