Search for $C\!P$ violation in $D^+_{(s)}\to{}K_{S}^{0}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ decays using triple and quadruple products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform the first search for $C\!P$ violation in ${D_{(s)}^{+}\to{}K_{S}^{0}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}}$ decays. We use a combined data set from the Belle and Belle II experiments, which study $e^+e^-$ collisions at center-of-mass energies at or near the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance. We use 980 fb$^{-1}$ of data from Belle and 428 fb$^{-1}$ of data from Belle~II. We measure six $C\!P$-violating asymmetries that are based on triple products and quadruple products of the momenta of final-state particles, and also the particles' helicity angles. We obtain a precision at the level of 0.5% for $D^+\to{}K_{S}^{0}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ decays, and better than 0.3% for $D^+_{s}\to{}K_{S}^{0}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ decays. No evidence of $C\!P$ violation is found. Our results for the triple-product asymmetries are the most precise to date for singly-Cabibbo-suppressed $D^+$ decays. Our results for the other asymmetries are the first such measurements performed for charm decays.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".