Calculations of branching ratios and longitudinal polarization fractions in <i>B</i><sup>0</sup> → <i>K</i><sup>*0</sup><i>K</i><sup>*0</sup> and <i>B</i><sup>0</sup><sub>s</sub> → <i>K</i><sup>*0</sup><i>K</i><sup>*0</sup> decays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I have investigated the two-body pure penguin decays of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], that these were collected with the LHCb detector, and the branching fractions were measured to be [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. I have studied these decay modes within the framework of the factorization approach by using three different energy scales; while in calculating the amplitude of these decays, the multiplications of four vectors of the polarization vectors, such as [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] appear. These parameters have been calculated based on helicity amplitudes [Formula: see text]; the results obtained for branching fractions in the μ = mb/2 scale are [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. I have also estimated the fractions of longitudinal polarizations in [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] decay modes by considering the transverse amplitudes [Formula: see text]; at the μ = mb/2 scale the results are obtained to be [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], which are comparable to the experimental results, 0.724 ± 0.051 ± 0.016 and 0.694 ± 0.016 ± 0.012, respectively, reported by the LHCb collaboration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".