Model-agnostic likelihood for the reinterpretation of the <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>B</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> <mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>K</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> <mml:mi>v</mml:mi> <mml:mover accent="true"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>v</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo stretchy="false">¯</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:mover> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> measurement at Belle II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently measured the branching fraction of the B + → K + ν ν ¯ decay using 362 fb − 1 of on-resonance e + e − collision data under the assumption of Standard Model kinematics, providing the first evidence for this decay. To facilitate future reinterpretations and maximize the scientific impact of this measurement, we publicly release the full analysis likelihood along with all necessary material required for reinterpretation under arbitrary theoretical models sensitive to this measurement. In this work, we demonstrate how the measurement can be reinterpreted within the framework of the weak effective theory. Using a kinematic reweighting technique in combination with the published likelihood, we derive marginal posterior distributions for the Wilson coefficients, construct credible intervals, and assess the goodness of fit to the Belle II data. For the weak effective theory Wilson coefficients, the posterior mode of the magnitudes | C VL + C VR | , | C SL + C SR | , and | C TL | corresponds to the point (11.3, 0.0, 8.2). The respective 95% credible intervals are [1.9, 16.2], [0.0, 15.4], and [0.0, 11.2].
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.031 |
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".