MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The $$Q_{1,2}$$–$$Q_7$$ interference contributions to $$b \rightarrow s \gamma $$ at $${\mathcal O}(\alpha _{\mathrm s}^2)$$ for the physical value of $$m_c$$

2023· article· lv· W4389377785 on OpenAlexafffund
Mateusz Czaja, M. Czakon, Tobias Huber, Mikołaj Misiak, Marco Niggetiedt, A. Rehman, Kay Schönwald, Matthias Steinhauser

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Physical Journal C · 2023
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean Commission
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The $$\bar{B}\rightarrow X_s\gamma $$ B ¯ → X s γ branching ratio is currently measured with around $$5\%$$ 5 % accuracy. Further improvement is expected from Belle II. To match such a precision on the theoretical side, evaluation of $${\mathcal O}(\alpha _{\mathrm s}^2)$$ O ( α s 2 ) corrections to the partonic decay $$b \rightarrow X_s^\textrm{part}\gamma $$ b → X s part γ are necessary, which includes the $$b \rightarrow s \gamma $$ b → s γ , $$b \rightarrow s g\gamma $$ b → s g γ , $$b \rightarrow s gg\gamma $$ b → s g g γ , $$b \rightarrow sq\bar{q}\gamma $$ b → s q q ¯ γ decay channels. Here, we evaluate the unrenormalized contribution to $$b \rightarrow s \gamma $$ b → s γ that stems from the interference of the photonic dipole operator $$Q_7$$ Q 7 and the current–current operators $$Q_1$$ Q 1 and $$Q_2$$ Q 2 . Our results, obtained in the cut propagator approach at the 4-loop level, agree with those found in parallel by Fael et al. who have applied the amplitude approach at the 3-loop level. Partial results for the same quantities recently determined by Greub et al. agree with our findings, too.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2150.025

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Physical Journal CSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207