University of Groningen
First branching fraction measurement of the suppressed decay Ξ 0 c → π − Λ + c
De Bruyn, K.; Onderwater, C. J. G.; van Veghel, M.; LHCb Collaboration
Published in: Physical Review D DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevD.102.071101
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
De Bruyn, K., Onderwater, C. J. G., van Veghel, M., & LHCb Collaboration (2020). First branching fraction measurement of the suppressed decay Ξ 0 c → π − Λ + c. Physical Review D, 102(7), [071101].
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.071101
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
First branching fraction measurement of the suppressed decay
Ξ
0c
→ π
−Λ
c+R. Aaijet al.* (LHCb Collaboration)
(Received 23 July 2020; accepted 11 September 2020; published 12 October 2020) TheΞ0c baryon is unstable and usually decays into charmless final states by the c → su ¯d transition.
It can, however, also disintegrate into aπ−meson and aΛþc baryon via s quark decay or via cs → dc weak scattering. The interplay between the latter two processes governs the size of the branching fraction BðΞ0
c→ π−ΛþcÞ, first measured here to be ð0.55 0.02 0.18Þ%, where the first uncertainty is statistical
and second systematic. This result is compatible with the larger of the theoretical predictions that connect models of hyperon decays using partially conserved axial currents and SU(3) symmetry with those involving the heavy-quark expansion and heavy-quark symmetry. In addition, the branching fraction of the normalization channel,BðΞþc → pK−πþÞ ¼ ð1.135 0.002 0.387Þ% is measured.
DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.071101
Baryons containing both an s quark and a heavy c or b quark, denoted as Q, usually decay via the disintegration of the heavy quark. There is, however, the possibility of s quark decay causing the transformation. Theoretical pre-dictions concerning the decay widths of ΞQ→ πΛQ tran-sitions are based on the size of the s quark decay amplitude s → uð ¯udÞ (SUUD) and the weak scattering (WS) ampli-tude Qs → dQ [1]. Feynman diagrams corresponding to these amplitudes are shown in Fig. 1forΞ0c decay.
Studies of theseΞQbaryon decays provide a connection to theories concerning hyperon decays with those for the heavy b and c quarks. The former use partially conserved axial currents (PCAC) and SU(3) symmetry [2], whereas the latter apply more modern approaches using four-quark operators, including the heavy quark expansion, and heavy-quark symmetry (HQS). As theΞ−b baryon consists of b, s, and d quarks, the WS amplitude is not present in Ξ−b → π−Λ0
bdecays, so the measurement of that decay rate can be
used to determine the SUUD amplitude. This information can be used to predict theΞ0c decay rate that, in principle, involves both amplitudes. Whenever a specific final state is mentioned additional use of the charge-conjugated state is implied.
The well-known Ξ0c baryon consists of the c, s, and d quarks, and has a lifetime of 154.5 1.7 1.6 1.0 fs [3]. The branching fraction BðΞ0c → π−ΛþcÞ has not been previously measured. Several authors have made predic-tions using the measured SUUD amplitude and the
measured lifetimes of the SU(3) triplet baryons Ξ0c, Λþc, andΞþc, as input for determining the WS amplitude. This method was pioneered by Voloshin [1] where he used SU(3) symmetry, PCAC and the heavy-quark limit to determine an upper limit on ΓðΞ−b → π−Λ0bÞ. In a sub-sequent paper, he uses the input from the LHCb measure-ment of BðΞ−b→π−Λ0bÞ¼ð0.600.18Þ%[4] and updated values for the charmed baryon lifetimes to find the SUUD rate and then calculates the WS amplitude. He predicts BðΞ0
c → π−ΛþcÞ⪆ ð0.25 0.15Þ × 10−3[5], assuming
neg-ative interference between the two strangeness-changing amplitudes.
Gronau and Rosner, using the same approach as Voloshin, predict two possible branching fractions for Ξ0
c→ π−Λþc decay, depending on the sign of the
interfer-ence between the two decay amplitudes[6]. Based on the measuredBðΞ−b → π−Λ0b) [4], and using charmed-baryon lifetimes available at that time, they predict BðΞ0c → π−Λþ
cÞ ¼ ð0.19 0.07Þ% for constructive interference
and BðΞ0c → π−ΛþcÞ ⪅ 0.01% for destructive interference between the SUUD and WS contributions. We have redone their calculation using updated lifetime measurements [3,7], finding BðΞ0c→ π−ΛþcÞ ¼ ð0.14 0.07Þ% for con-structive interference and BðΞ0c → π−ΛþcÞ ⪅ ð0.018 0.015Þ% for destructive interference. Faller and Mannel, on the other hand, predictBðΞ0c→ π−ΛþcÞ < 0.3%, an upper limit obtained by assuming constructive interference [8]. Finally, Cheng et al. predict BðΞ0c → π−ΛþcÞ ∼ 0.0087%, assuming negative interference[9]. We have not updated these last predictions; the effect would be to lower Faller and Mannel’s positive interference prediction and raise the Cheng et al. negative one, giving somewhat better agree-ment with Gronau and Rosner’s predictions.
In this paper we measure BðΞ0c→ π−ΛþcÞ using data collected by the LHCb detector, corresponding to3.8 fb−1
*Full author list given at the end of the article.
Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.
of integrated luminosity in 13 TeV center-of-mass energy pp collisions taken in 2017 and 2018. Natural units are used in this paper with c ¼ ℏ ¼ 1. The LHCb detector is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudora-pidity range2 < η < 5, described in detail in Refs.[10,11]. The trigger [12] consists of a hardware stage, based on information from the calorimeter and muon systems, followed by a software stage, which reconstructs charged particles.
Simulation is required to model the effects of the detector acceptance and selection requirements. We generate pp collisions using PYTHIA [13] with a specific LHCb
con-figuration[14]. Decays of unstable particles are described
by EVTGEN [15], where final-state radiation is generated
usingPHOTOS[16]. The interaction of the particles with the
detector, and its response, are implemented using the
GEANT4 toolkit[17]as described in Ref.[18].
In our analysis we use the prompt Ξ0c sample, i.e., baryons, and their excitations, produced directly in the pp collisions. Measurement ofBðΞ0c→ π−ΛþcÞ is hampered by the lack of accurately measuredΞ0c branching fractions[7] to be used for normalization. A measurement of BðΞ0c→ πþΞ−Þ with a 29% uncertainty exists [19], but the
effi-ciency for reconstructing Ξ− baryons is low in LHCb, in particular without a dedicated trigger line, so using this mode would lead to an unacceptably large error. We overcome this difficulty by using two indirect methods, described below, that require additional measurements of promptΛþc andΞþc yields, both reconstructed in the pK−πþ decay mode. The same decay mode is also used to reconstructΛþc from theΞ0c → π−Λþc decays.
We use a two-step process to maximize the statistical significance of our signal channel, as well as the two normalization channels. First, we apply a set of loose selection criteria to obtain samples with large signal efficiencies and suppressed background. Subsequently, we use three different boosted decision trees (BDT) [20,21], one for each baryon decay, implemented in the TMVA toolkit [22], to further separate signal from background.
The loose selection criteria for the pK−πþ final states include requirements on the tracks to have sufficient transverse momenta (pT), be separated from the primary
pp collision vertex (PV), form a three-track vertex, and be identified as the hypothesized particle species. For the Ξ0
c → π−Λþc decay we require, in addition, that the pK−πþ
has a mass within 20 MeV of the Λþc mass peak; that there is an additional π− meson, which when combined with the Λþc candidate, has an invariant mass from −85 MeV below the known Ξ0
c mass [7] to 115 MeV
above; and that the pT of the Ξ0c candidate is greater
than 5 GeV.
The BDTs are trained with background samples from data and simulated signal samples. Background training samples for theΛþc andΞþc candidates are taken from the sideband regions on both sides of the mass peaks. For the Λþ
c baryon background the intervals are 40–65 MeV away
from the knownΛþc mass[7]. For theΞþc baryon training the lower and higher sidebands are taken 40–58 MeV and 40–72 MeV from the known Ξþ
c mass[7], respectively. The
Ξ0
c background is constructed from like-signπþΛþc
candi-dates within 5 MeV of the known Ξ0c baryon mass [7]. For the Λþc and Ξþc candidates, we compute the pK−πþ invariant mass after constraining the three decay particles to form a common vertex and the summed momentum vector to point to the PV; this fitter is referred to as the“decay tree fitter” (DTF)[23]. In the case of theΞ0c baryon we add the additionalπ∓ meson before performing the fit. Only1=10 of the available Λþc → pK−πþ data sample is used to measure the Λþc yield due to the large samples available relative to the other channels.
The variables used in the Λþc and Ξþc BDTs are the particle identification probabilities; theχ2IP of the pK−πþ with respect to the primary vertex, whereχ2IPis defined as the difference in the vertex fitχ2 with and without the p, K−, and πþ tracks; the angle between the particle’s momentum vector and the vector from the original PV before the DTF refitting to the particle’s decay vertex; the decay distance from the PV, and the DTF χ2. The Ξ0c candidates are selected by a separate BDT using the same criteria used for theΛþc by adding similar extra variables associated with the additional pion.
The BDT selections are optimized by maximizing the ratio of signal efficiency to the square root of the number of candidates in the regions where we expect signal peaks. We show the resulting mass spectra in Fig.2; the data are fitted using the signal and background shapes described in the figure caption. The fit yields are 6320 230 Ξ0c, 2667200 3300 Λþ
c, and 1613000 3500 Ξþc signal
decays. To take into account the efficiency variation we perform the fits in four bins, two in pT and two inη, and
apply efficiencies calculated in each bin.
W
-s
c
u
d
d
{
Ξ
c
0Λ
c
+u
d
c
}
}
π
-W
-s
c
d
{
Ξ
c
0 d d c u u}
π
-}
Λ
c
+(a)
(b)
Trigger efficiencies are estimated from data, using the technique described in Ref.[25]. Selection efficiencies are determined using simulated events, which are weighted to reproduce the resonance structures in the pK−πþfinal states visible in theΛþc andΞþc signal samples. The overall detection efficiencies are ð0.11 0.02Þ%, ½ð0.35 0.01Þ=10%, and ð1.18 0.03Þ% for Ξ0
c, Λþc,
and Ξþc decays, respectively, where the factor of 10 is the prescale.
The first normalization method uses the LHCb meas-urement of the relative production fractions of theΞ−b and Λ0
b beauty baryons, fΞ−b=fΛ0b ¼ ð8.2 0.7 2.6Þ% [26].
Using HQS we equate the unmeasured production ratio of Ξ0
c to Λþc baryons, fΞ0
c=fΛþc, toC · fΞ−b=fΛ0b, whereC is a
correction factor for feed-downs of excitedΞbbaryons that do not have equal rates toΞ−b andΞ0bfinal states. This feed-down is not symmetric primarily because the Ξ0bð5935Þ0 state always decays toπ0(orγ) Ξ0b[27], since its mass is too low to decay intoπþΞ−b. On the other hand, both theΞ0−b andΞ−b states are seen to decay into bothπ−Ξ0bandπ0Ξ−b final states[28]. Any not yet observed higher mass states would be isospin symmetric in their decays. Accounting for all the known excited states, and the associated phase-space
corrections, results in C ¼ 1.18 0.04, where the uncer-tainty arises from the errors on the relative branching fraction measurements.
The second method uses the recent Belle measurement BðΞþ
c → pK−πþÞ ¼ ð0.45 0.21 0.07Þ%[29]. Here we
take the production ofΞ0c baryons equal to that of Ξþc by isospin symmetry, e.g., fΞ0
c=fΞþc ¼ 1.00 0.01 [30]. As
the final state particles in theΞþc decay are the same as in theΛþc decay, many systematic uncertainties cancel.
We determine BðΞ0c→ π−ΛþcÞ using the two measured ratios R1≡NðΞ 0 cÞ NðΛþcÞ ¼ fΞ0c fΛþ c ·BðΞ0c→ π−ΛþcÞ ¼ ð0.095 0.003 0.012Þ%; R2≡NðΞ 0 cÞ NðΞþcÞ ¼fΞ0c fΞþ c ·BðΛ þ c → pK−πþÞ BðΞþ c → pK−πþÞ ·BðΞ0c → π−ΛþcÞ ¼ ð5.70 0.19 0.77Þ%;
where NðiÞ indicates the efficiency corrected number of signal events for baryon i, fi indicates the fraction of
particle production with respect to all c- or b-quark
2440 2450 2460 2470 2480 2490 2500 2510 [MeV] ) + c Λ m( + ) + π − m(pK - ) − π + π − m(pK 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 3 10 × Candidates / (0.5 MeV) Data Total fit 0 c Ξ Signal Background LHCb (a) 2240 2260 2280 2300 2320 2340 [MeV] ) + π − m(pK 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 3 10 × Candidates / (0.5 MeV) Data Total fit + c Λ Signal Background LHCb (b) 2420 2440 2460 2480 2500 2520 [MeV] ) + π − m(pK 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 3 10 × Candidates / (0.5 MeV) Data Total fit + c Ξ Signal Background LHCb (c)
FIG. 2. Reconstructed invariant-mass distributions and signal fits of (a) mðpK−πþπ−Þ showing a large Σ0csignal with a smallerΞ0c
signal, (b) mðpK−πþÞ showing the Λþc signal, and (c) mðpK−πþÞ showing the Ξþc signal. For (a) the signal shape is a Crystal Ball
function[24]with a high-mass tail, and the background shape is linear. For (b) and (c) the signal shapes are double-sided Crystal Ball plus single Gaussian functions, while the background shapes are second-order polynomials. The data in (b) only use 1=10 of the available sample.
production, and the uncertainties are statistical and sys-tematic, respectively, a convention used in the rest of this paper. As discussed above, fΞ0
c=fΛþc ¼ C · fΞ−b=fΛ0b ¼
ð9.7 0.9 3.1Þ%, where we have added a 5% relative systematic uncertainty, explained later, to account for our assumption of HQS.
We also determineBðΞþc → pK−πþÞ using R3≡NðΞ þ cÞ NðΛþcÞ ¼fΞþc fΛþ c ·BðΞ þ c → pK−πþÞ BðΛþ c → pK−πþÞ ¼ ð1.753 0.003 0.107Þ%;
where BðΛþc → pK−πþÞ ¼ ð6.23 0.33Þ% [7]. The cor-relation matrix for these three results is
0 B B B @ R1 R2 R3 R1 1 0.71 0.15 R2 … 1 −0.18 R3 … … 1 1 C C C A The derived branching fractions are
B1≡ BðΞ0c → π−ΛþcÞ ¼ ð0.98 0.04 0.35Þ%;
B2≡ BðΞ0c → π−ΛþcÞ ¼ ð0.41 0.01 0.21Þ%;
B3≡ BðΞþc → pK−πþÞ ¼ ð1.135 0.002 0.387Þ%:
Their correlation matrix is 0 B B B @ B1 B2 B3 B1 1 0.07 0.92 B2 … 1 −0.02 B3 … … 1 1 C C C A:
The weighted average value of B1 and B2, taking into account their correlated error, is
BðΞ0
c → π−ΛþcÞ ¼ ð0.55 0.02 0.18Þ%:
Systematic uncertainties dominate these results due to our reliance on external inputs. Our assumption of HQS to relate fΞ0
c=fΛþc to fΞ−b=fΛ0b is justified by considering the
analogous ratios of production fractions between charm and beauty states in 13 TeV pp collisions, fDþs
fD0þfDþ and
f
B0s
fB0þfBþ. The beauty ratio is measured using semimuonic
decays into a charmed meson, determined in the kinematic range 4 < pT< 25 GeV, and is equal to 0.122 0.006 [31]. Using the total charm cross sections reported for 0 < pT< 15 GeV in Ref. [32], we find
fDþ
s
fD0þfDþ≈ 0.121,
where the statistical uncertainty is negligible. The system-atic uncertainties in the charm-meson ratio including tracking, particle identification, luminosity, etc., mostly cancel. The uncertainties in the charm meson branching
fractions cancel in the comparison with the B meson ratio, because the same values are used in both. Thus we are left with a few percent uncertainty in the comparison of the charm and beauty meson ratios. The pTdistributions of the
ratios are somewhat different; they fall linearly in the beauty case [31] and are flatter in the charm case [32]. Taking this into account, a 5% relative uncertainty due to the HQS assumption appears reasonable. Contamination of the charm baryons from b-decay sources is estimated in simulation and subtracted. The resultant systematic uncer-tainties in the ratios are small. Table I summarizes the sources of systematic uncertainty.
In conclusion, we perform the first measurement of the branching fraction of the suppressed Ξ0c→ π−Λþc decays, givingBðΞ0c→ π−ΛþcÞ ¼ ð0.55 0.02 0.18Þ%. We com-pare with the theoretical predictions in Fig. 3; while our measurements are somewhat larger, we are in agreement with Gronau and Rosner’s constructive interference prediction. Our result is also consistent with the Faller and Mannel upper limit arrived at by assuming constructive interference[8]. We
TABLE I. Systematic uncertainties in the branching fraction measurements. Ghost tracks refers to uncertainties from falsely reconstructed tracks. PID refers to particle identification effi-ciencies. Intermediate decays refers to the uncertainties caused by inexact modeling of the resonant structures in the charmed-baryon decays. The b-decay sources refer to charmed charmed-baryons originating from b-baryon decays included in our primarily prompt samples. Relative RL refers to minor differences in the accumulated luminosities of the data samples for each of the three decays. The summed uncertainties are obtained by adding the individual components in quadrature.
Estimate (%) BðΞ0 c→ π−ΛþcÞ BðΞþc → pK−πþÞ Source B1 B2 B3 fΞ− b=fΛ0b 32 32 fΞ0 c=fΛþc ¼ C · fΞ−b=fΛ0b 6 6 fΞ0 c=fΞþc ¼ 1 1 1 BðΞþ c → pK−πþÞ 49 BðΛþ c → pK−πþÞ 5 5 Simulation statistics 4 3 2 Trigger efficiency 7 8 2 Ghost tracks 2 2 0 PID 1 1 1 Tracking efficiencies 2 2 0 Fit yields 6 6 3 Intermediate decays 2 2 2 b-decay sources 2 0 2 Lifetimes 3 3 2 RelativeRL 1 1 Sum of external 33 49 33 Sum of intrinsic 12 13 6 Sum of all 35 51 34
disagree, however, with Cheng’s prediction of BðΞ0c→ π−Λþ
cÞ assuming negative interference[9]. In addition, the
branching fraction of the normalization channel is found to beBðΞþc → pK−πþÞ ¼ ð1.135 0.002 0.387Þ%, that is somewhat larger than, but in agreement with a previous Belle measurement[29], and has a better relative precision.
We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative staff at the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); MOST and NSFC (China); CNRS/ IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG and MPG (Germany); INFN (Italy); NWO (Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MEN/IFA (Romania); MSHE (Russia); MinECo (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE NP and NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom), RRCKI and Yandex LLC (Russia), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), PL-GRID (Poland) and OSC (USA). We are indebted to the communities behind the multiple open-source software packages on which we depend. Individual groups or members have received support from AvH Foundation (Germany); EPLANET, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union); A*MIDEX, ANR, Labex P2IO and OCEVU, and R´egion Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (France); Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS, CAS PIFI, and the Thousand Talents Program (China); RFBR, RSF and Yandex LLC (Russia); GVA, XuntaGal and GENCAT (Spain); the Royal Society and the Leverhulme Trust (United Kingdom).
[1] M. B. Voloshin, Weak decaysΞðQÞ → ΛðQÞπ,Phys. Lett. B 476, 297 (2000).
[2] S. Treiman, Commutator algebra and the PCAC hypothesis, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 1, 13 (1967).
[3] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Precision measurement of theΛþc,Ξþc andΞ0cbaryon lifetimes,Phys. Rev. D 100, 032001 (2019).
[4] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Evidence for the Strangeness-Changing Weak Decay Ξ−b → Λ0bπ−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 241801 (2015).
[5] M. B. Voloshin, Update on splitting of lifetimes of c and b hyperons within the heavy quark expansion and decays ΞQ→ ΛQπ, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114030 (2019).
[6] M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, FromΞb→ Λ0bπ to Ξc→ Λþcπ, Phys. Lett. B 757, 330 (2016).
[7] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018), and 2019 update.
[8] S. Faller and T. Mannel, Light-quark decays in heavy hadrons,Phys. Lett. B 750, 653 (2015).
[9] H.-Y. Cheng, C.-Y. Cheung, G.-L. Lin, Y.-C. Lin, T.-M. Yan, and H.-L. Yu, Heavy-flavor-conserving hadronic weak decays of heavy baryons,J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2016)
028;Heavy flavor conserving nonleptonic weak decays of heavy baryons,Phys. Rev. D 46, 5060 (1992).
[10] A. A. Alves, Jr.et al. (LHCb Collaboration), The LHCb detector at the LHC, J. Instrum. 3, S08005 (2008). [11] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), LHCb detector
performance,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1530022 (2015). [12] R. Aaij et al., The LHCb trigger and its performance in
2011,J. Instrum. 8, P04022 (2013).
[13] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008); PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual,J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2006) 026.
[14] I. Belyaev et al., Handling of the generation of primary events in Gauss the LHCb simulation framework,J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331, 032047 (2011).
[15] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 462, 152 (2001).
[16] P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOS Monte Carlo: A precision tool for QED corrections in Z and W decays,Eur. Phys. J. C 45, 97 (2006).
[17] J. Allison et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), Geant4 develop-ments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270
4 − 10 3 − 10 2 − 10
)
+ cΛ
-π
→
0 cΞ(
B
LHCb
) + c Λ Exp. ( ) + c Ξ Exp. ( Exp. (mean) FM (+) GR (+) GR (-) V (-) C (-)FIG. 3. Comparison of our two measurements of BðΞ0
c→ π−ΛþcÞ, and their average, with the lower limit of
Voloshin (V) [5], the upper limit of Faller and Mannel [8] (FM), updated predictions of Gronau and Rosner[6](GR), and Cheng et al.[9](C). The (þ or −) indicates if positive or negative interference between the SUUD and WS amplitudes is assumed.
(2006); S. Agostinelli et al. (Geant4 Collaboration), Geant4: A simulation toolkit,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 506, 250 (2003).
[18] M. Clemencic, G. Corti, S. Easo, C. R. Jones, S. Miglioranzi, M. Pappagallo, and P. Robbe, The LHCb simulation application, Gauss: Design, evolution and experience, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331, 032023 (2011).
[19] Y. B. Li et al. (Belle Collaboration), First Measurements of Absolute Branching Fractions of theΞ0c Baryon at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 082001 (2019).
[20] L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and Regression Trees (Wadsworth International Group, Belmont, CA, 1984).
[21] R. E. Schapire and Y. Freund, A decision-theoretic gener-alization of on-line learning and an application to boosting, J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 119 (1997).
[22] A. Hoecker et al., TMVA: Toolkit for multivariate data analysis, Proc. Sci. ACAT2007 (2007) 040 [arXiv:physics/ 0703039]; J. Stelzer, A. Hocker, P. Speckmayer, and H. Voss, Current developments in TMVA: An outlook to TMVA4,Proc. Sci. ACAT08 (2008) 063.
[23] W. D. Hulsbergen, Decay chain fitting with a Kalman filter, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 552, 566 (2005).
[24] T. Skwarnicki, A study of the radiative cascade transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances, Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1986, Report No. DESY-F31-86-02.
[25] S. Tolk, J. Albrecht, F. Dettori, and A. Pellegrino, Data driven trigger efficiency determination at LHCb, CERN Reports No. LHCb-PUB-2014-039 and No. CERN-LHCb-PUB-2014-039, 2014.
[26] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of the mass and production rate ofΞ−b baryons,Phys. Rev. D 99, 052006 (2019).
[27] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of the properties of the Ξ0b baryon, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2016) 161.
[28] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Observation of Two NewΞ−b Baryon Resonances,Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 062004 (2015).
[29] Y. B. Li et al. (Belle Collaboration), First measurements of absolute branching fractions of the Ξþc baryon at Belle, Phys. Rev. D 100, 031101 (2019).
[30] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018), and 2019 update; see section 84.2.
[31] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurement of b-hadron fractions in 13 TeV pp collisions,Phys. Rev. D 100, 031102 (2019).
[32] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at pffiffiffis¼ 13 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2016) 159; Erratum,J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2016) 013(E);Erratum, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2017) 074(E).
R. Aaij,31 C. Abellán Beteta,49T. Ackernley,59 B. Adeva,45 M. Adinolfi,53 H. Afsharnia,9 C. A. Aidala,84S. Aiola,25 Z. Ajaltouni,9S. Akar,64J. Albrecht,14F. Alessio,47M. Alexander,58A. Alfonso Albero,44Z. Aliouche,61G. Alkhazov,37 P. Alvarez Cartelle,47S. Amato,2 Y. Amhis,11L. An,21L. Anderlini,21G. Andreassi,48A. Andreianov,37M. Andreotti,20 F. Archilli,16A. Artamonov,43M. Artuso,67K. Arzymatov,41E. Aslanides,10M. Atzeni,49B. Audurier,11S. Bachmann,16 M. Bachmayer,48J. J. Back,55S. Baker,60P. Baladron Rodriguez,45 V. Balagura,11,bW. Baldini,20J. Baptista Leite,1 R. J. Barlow,61S. Barsuk,11W. Barter,60M. Bartolini,23,47,hF. Baryshnikov,80J. M. Basels,13G. Bassi,28V. Batozskaya,35 B. Batsukh,67A. Battig,14A. Bay,48M. Becker,14F. Bedeschi,28I. Bediaga,1A. Beiter,67V. Belavin,41S. Belin,26V. Bellee,48
K. Belous,43I. Belyaev,38G. Bencivenni,22E. Ben-Haim,12A. Berezhnoy,39R. Bernet,49D. Berninghoff,16 H. C. Bernstein,67C. Bertella,47E. Bertholet,12A. Bertolin,27C. Betancourt,49F. Betti,19,eM. O. Bettler,54Ia. Bezshyiko,49
S. Bhasin,53J. Bhom,33 L. Bian,72M. S. Bieker,14S. Bifani,52P. Billoir,12 M. Birch,60 F. C. R. Bishop,54A. Bizzeti,21,s M. Bjørn,62M. P. Blago,47T. Blake,55F. Blanc,48S. Blusk,67D. Bobulska,58V. Bocci,30J. A. Boelhauve,14 O. Boente Garcia,45T. Boettcher,63A. Boldyrev,81A. Bondar,42,vN. Bondar,37,47S. Borghi,61M. Borisyak,41M. Borsato,16
J. T. Borsuk,33S. A. Bouchiba,48T. J. V. Bowcock,59A. Boyer,47C. Bozzi,20M. J. Bradley,60S. Braun,65 A. Brea Rodriguez,45M. Brodski,47J. Brodzicka,33A. Brossa Gonzalo,55D. Brundu,26A. Buonaura,49C. Burr,47 A. Bursche,26A. Butkevich,40 J. S. Butter,31J. Buytaert,47W. Byczynski,47S. Cadeddu,26H. Cai,72R. Calabrese,20,g L. Calero Diaz,22S. Cali,22R. Calladine,52M. Calvi,24,iM. Calvo Gomez,83P. Camargo Magalhaes,53A. Camboni,44
P. Campana,22D. H. Campora Perez,47A. F. Campoverde Quezada,5 S. Capelli,24,iL. Capriotti,19,e A. Carbone,19,e G. Carboni,29R. Cardinale,23,h A. Cardini,26I. Carli,6P. Carniti,24,iK. Carvalho Akiba,31A. Casais Vidal,45G. Casse,59 M. Cattaneo,47G. Cavallero,47S. Celani,48R. Cenci,28J. Cerasoli,10A. J. Chadwick,59M. G. Chapman,53M. Charles,12
Ph. Charpentier,47G. Chatzikonstantinidis,52M. Chefdeville,8 C. Chen,3 S. Chen,26A. Chernov,33S.-G. Chitic,47 V. Chobanova,45S. Cholak,48M. Chrzaszcz,33A. Chubykin,37V. Chulikov,37P. Ciambrone,22M. F. Cicala,55X. Cid Vidal,45 G. Ciezarek,47P. E. L. Clarke,57M. Clemencic,47H. V. Cliff,54J. Closier,47J. L. Cobbledick,61V. Coco,47J. A. B. Coelho,11 J. Cogan,10E. Cogneras,9 L. Cojocariu,36P. Collins,47T. Colombo,47A. Contu,26N. Cooke,52G. Coombs,58G. Corti,47
C. M. Costa Sobral,55B. Couturier,47D. C. Craik,63J. Crkovská,66M. Cruz Torres,1 R. Currie,57C. L. Da Silva,66 E. Dall’Occo,14
J. Dalseno,45C. D’Ambrosio,47 A. Danilina,38P. d’Argent,47A. Davis,61O. De Aguiar Francisco,47 K. De Bruyn,77S. De Capua,61 M. De Cian,48J. M. De Miranda,1 L. De Paula,2 M. De Serio,18,dD. De Simone,49 P. De Simone,22J. A. de Vries,78C. T. Dean,66W. Dean,84D. Decamp,8L. Del Buono,12B. Delaney,54H.-P. Dembinski,14 A. Dendek,34X. Denis,72V. Denysenko,49D. Derkach,81O. Deschamps,9F. Desse,11F. Dettori,26,fB. Dey,72P. Di Nezza,22 S. Didenko,80H. Dijkstra,47V. Dobishuk,51A. M. Donohoe,17F. Dordei,26M. Dorigo,28,wA. C. dos Reis,1L. Douglas,58 A. Dovbnya,50A. G. Downes,8 K. Dreimanis,59M. W. Dudek,33L. Dufour,47V. Duk,76P. Durante,47J. M. Durham,66
D. Dutta,61M. Dziewiecki,16A. Dziurda,33 A. Dzyuba,37S. Easo,56U. Egede,69V. Egorychev,38S. Eidelman,42,v S. Eisenhardt,57S. Ek-In,48 L. Eklund,58S. Ely,67 A. Ene,36E. Epple,66S. Escher,13J. Eschle,49S. Esen,31T. Evans,47
A. Falabella,19 J. Fan,3 Y. Fan,5 B. Fang,72N. Farley,52S. Farry,59D. Fazzini,24,iP. Fedin,38M. F´eo,47
P. Fernandez Declara,47A. Fernandez Prieto,45F. Ferrari,19,eL. Ferreira Lopes,48F. Ferreira Rodrigues,2S. Ferreres Sole,31 M. Ferrillo,49M. Ferro-Luzzi,47S. Filippov,40R. A. Fini,18M. Fiorini,20,gM. Firlej,34K. M. Fischer,62C. Fitzpatrick,61 T. Fiutowski,34F. Fleuret,11,bM. Fontana,47F. Fontanelli,23,hR. Forty,47V. Franco Lima,59M. Franco Sevilla,65M. Frank,47 E. Franzoso,20G. Frau,16C. Frei,47D. A. Friday,58J. Fu,25,o Q. Fuehring,14W. Funk,47E. Gabriel,31 T. Gaintseva,41 A. Gallas Torreira,45D. Galli,19,eS. Gallorini,27S. Gambetta,57Y. Gan,3M. Gandelman,2P. Gandini,25Y. Gao,4M. Garau,26 L. M. Garcia Martin,46P. Garcia Moreno,44J. García Pardiñas,49B. Garcia Plana,45F. A. Garcia Rosales,11L. Garrido,44 D. Gascon,44C. Gaspar,47R. E. Geertsema,31D. Gerick,16L. L. Gerken,14E. Gersabeck,61M. Gersabeck,61T. Gershon,55 D. Gerstel,10Ph. Ghez,8V. Gibson,54A. Gioventù,45P. Gironella Gironell,44L. Giubega,36C. Giugliano,20,gK. Gizdov,57 V. V. Gligorov,12C. Göbel,70E. Golobardes,83D. Golubkov,38 A. Golutvin,60,80A. Gomes,1,a S. Gomez Fernandez,44
M. Goncerz,33P. Gorbounov,38 I. V. Gorelov,39C. Gotti,24E. Govorkova,31J. P. Grabowski,16R. Graciani Diaz,44 T. Grammatico,12L. A. Granado Cardoso,47E. Graug´es,44E. Graverini,48G. Graziani,21A. Grecu,36L. M. Greeven,31
P. Griffith,20L. Grillo,61L. Gruber,47B. R. Gruberg Cazon,62C. Gu,3 M. Guarise,20 P. A. Günther,16E. Gushchin,40 A. Guth,13Yu. Guz,43,47T. Gys,47T. Hadavizadeh,69G. Haefeli,48C. Haen,47S. C. Haines,54P. M. Hamilton,65Q. Han,7
X. Han,16T. H. Hancock,62S. Hansmann-Menzemer,16N. Harnew,62T. Harrison,59R. Hart,31C. Hasse,47 M. Hatch,47 J. He,5 M. Hecker,60K. Heijhoff,31K. Heinicke,14A. M. Hennequin,47K. Hennessy,59L. Henry,25,46J. Heuel,13 A. Hicheur,68D. Hill,62M. Hilton,61S. E. Hollitt,14P. H. Hopchev,48J. Hu,16J. Hu,71W. Hu,7W. Huang,5W. Hulsbergen,31
R. J. Hunter,55 M. Hushchyn,81 D. Hutchcroft,59 D. Hynds,31P. Ibis,14M. Idzik,34 D. Ilin,37P. Ilten,52A. Inglessi,37 K. Ivshin,37R. Jacobsson,47S. Jakobsen,47 E. Jans,31B. K. Jashal,46A. Jawahery,65V. Jevtic,14F. Jiang,3 M. John,62 D. Johnson,47C. R. Jones,54T. P. Jones,55B. Jost,47N. Jurik,47S. Kandybei,50Y. Kang,3 M. Karacson,47J. M. Kariuki,53 N. Kazeev,81M. Kecke,16F. Keizer,54,47M. Kelsey,67M. Kenzie,55T. Ketel,32B. Khanji,47A. Kharisova,82S. Kholodenko,43 K. E. Kim,67T. Kirn,13V. S. Kirsebom,48O. Kitouni,63S. Klaver,31K. Klimaszewski,35S. Koliiev,51A. Kondybayeva,80
A. Konoplyannikov,38P. Kopciewicz,34R. Kopecna,16P. Koppenburg,31M. Korolev,39 I. Kostiuk,31,51 O. Kot,51 S. Kotriakhova,37,30P. Kravchenko,37L. Kravchuk,40 R. D. Krawczyk,47M. Kreps,55F. Kress,60S. Kretzschmar,13 P. Krokovny,42,vW. Krupa,34W. Krzemien,35W. Kucewicz,86,33,kM. Kucharczyk,33V. Kudryavtsev,42,vH. S. Kuindersma,31
G. J. Kunde,66T. Kvaratskheliya,38D. Lacarrere,47G. Lafferty,61A. Lai,26A. Lampis,26D. Lancierini,49J. J. Lane,61 R. Lane,53 G. Lanfranchi,22C. Langenbruch,13J. Langer,14O. Lantwin,49,80T. Latham,55F. Lazzari,28,tR. Le Gac,10 S. H. Lee,84R. Lef`evre,9 A. Leflat,39,47S. Legotin,80O. Leroy,10T. Lesiak,33B. Leverington,16H. Li,71L. Li,62P. Li,16 X. Li,66Y. Li,6Y. Li,6Z. Li,67X. Liang,67T. Lin,60R. Lindner,47V. Lisovskyi,14R. Litvinov,26G. Liu,71H. Liu,5S. Liu,6 X. Liu,3A. Loi,26J. Lomba Castro,45I. Longstaff,58J. H. Lopes,2 G. Loustau,49G. H. Lovell,54Y. Lu,6D. Lucchesi,27,m S. Luchuk,40M. Lucio Martinez,31V. Lukashenko,31Y. Luo,3 A. Lupato,61E. Luppi,20,gO. Lupton,55A. Lusiani,28,r X. Lyu,5 L. Ma,6S. Maccolini,19,e F. Machefert,11 F. Maciuc,36V. Macko,48 P. Mackowiak,14S. Maddrell-Mander,53 L. R. Madhan Mohan,53O. Maev,37A. Maevskiy,81D. Maisuzenko,37M. W. Majewski,34S. Malde,62B. Malecki,47 A. Malinin,79T. Maltsev,42,v H. Malygina,16G. Manca,26,f G. Mancinelli,10R. Manera Escalero,44D. Manuzzi,19,e D. Marangotto,25,oJ. Maratas,9,uJ. F. Marchand,8 U. Marconi,19S. Mariani,21,47,21 C. Marin Benito,11M. Marinangeli,48
P. Marino,48J. Marks,16P. J. Marshall,59G. Martellotti,30L. Martinazzoli,47M. Martinelli,24,iD. Martinez Santos,45 F. Martinez Vidal,46A. Massafferri,1M. Materok,13R. Matev,47A. Mathad,49Z. Mathe,47V. Matiunin,38C. Matteuzzi,24
K. R. Mattioli,84A. Mauri,31E. Maurice,85,11,bJ. Mauricio,44M. Mazurek,35 M. McCann,60L. Mcconnell,17 T. H. Mcgrath,61 A. McNab,61R. McNulty,17J. V. Mead,59B. Meadows,64C. Meaux,10G. Meier,14N. Meinert,75 D. Melnychuk,35S. Meloni,24,iM. Merk,31,78A. Merli,25L. Meyer Garcia,2M. Mikhasenko,47D. A. Milanes,73E. Millard,55
M.-N. Minard,8 L. Minzoni,20,g S. E. Mitchell,57B. Mitreska,61D. S. Mitzel,47A. Mödden,14R. A. Mohammed,62 R. D. Moise,60T. Mombächer,14I. A. Monroy,73S. Monteil,9M. Morandin,27G. Morello,22M. J. Morello,28,rJ. Moron,34
A. B. Morris,74A. G. Morris,55R. Mountain,67H. Mu,3F. Muheim,57M. Mukherjee,7 M. Mulder,47 D. Müller,47 K. Müller,49C. H. Murphy,62D. Murray,61P. Muzzetto,26P. Naik,53T. Nakada,48R. Nandakumar,56T. Nanut,48I. Nasteva,2 M. Needham,57I. Neri,20,g N. Neri,25,oS. Neubert,74N. Neufeld,47R. Newcombe,60T. D. Nguyen,48C. Nguyen-Mau,48,l E. M. Niel,11S. Nieswand,13N. Nikitin,39N. S. Nolte,47C. Nunez,84A. Oblakowska-Mucha,34V. Obraztsov,43S. Ogilvy,58
D. P. O’Hanlon,53R. Oldeman,26,f C. J. G. Onderwater,77J. D. Osborn,84A. Ossowska,33J. M. Otalora Goicochea,2 T. Ovsiannikova,38P. Owen,49A. Oyanguren,46B. Pagare,55P. R. Pais,47T. Pajero,28,47,rA. Palano,18M. Palutan,22Y. Pan,61
G. Panshin,82 A. Papanestis,56M. Pappagallo,57L. L. Pappalardo,20,g C. Pappenheimer,64W. Parker,65C. Parkes,61 C. J. Parkinson,45B. Passalacqua,20G. Passaleva,21,47A. Pastore,18M. Patel,60C. Patrignani,19,eC. J. Pawley,78A. Pearce,47
A. Pellegrino,31M. Pepe Altarelli,47S. Perazzini,19D. Pereima,38P. Perret,9 K. Petridis,53A. Petrolini,23,hA. Petrov,79 S. Petrucci,57M. Petruzzo,25 A. Philippov,41L. Pica,28M. Piccini,76B. Pietrzyk,8 G. Pietrzyk,48M. Pili,62D. Pinci,30 J. Pinzino,47F. Pisani,47 A. Piucci,16Resmi P. K.,10V. Placinta,36 S. Playfer,57J. Plews,52M. Plo Casasus,45F. Polci,12 M. Poli Lener,22M. Poliakova,67A. Poluektov,10N. Polukhina,80,cI. Polyakov,67E. Polycarpo,2G. J. Pomery,53S. Ponce,47
A. Popov,43 D. Popov,5,47S. Popov,41 S. Poslavskii,43 K. Prasanth,33L. Promberger,47 C. Prouve,45V. Pugatch,51 A. Puig Navarro,49H. Pullen,62 G. Punzi,28,n W. Qian,5 J. Qin,5R. Quagliani,12B. Quintana,8 N. V. Raab,17 R. I. Rabadan Trejo,10B. Rachwal,34J. H. Rademacker,53M. Rama,28M. Ramos Pernas,45M. S. Rangel,2F. Ratnikov,41,81 G. Raven,32M. Reboud,8 F. Redi,48F. Reiss,12C. Remon Alepuz,46Z. Ren,3 V. Renaudin,62R. Ribatti,28S. Ricciardi,56
D. S. Richards,56K. Rinnert,59P. Robbe,11A. Robert,12G. Robertson,57A. B. Rodrigues,48E. Rodrigues,59 J. A. Rodriguez Lopez,73M. Roehrken,47A. Rollings,62P. Roloff,47V. Romanovskiy,43M. Romero Lamas,45 A. Romero Vidal,45 J. D. Roth,84M. Rotondo,22M. S. Rudolph,67 T. Ruf,47J. Ruiz Vidal,46A. Ryzhikov,81J. Ryzka,34
J. J. Saborido Silva,45N. Sagidova,37N. Sahoo,55B. Saitta,26,f C. Sanchez Gras,31C. Sanchez Mayordomo,46 R. Santacesaria,30 C. Santamarina Rios,45M. Santimaria,22E. Santovetti,29,jD. Saranin,80G. Sarpis,61M. Sarpis,74 A. Sarti,30C. Satriano,30,qA. Satta,29M. Saur,5 D. Savrina,38,39H. Sazak,9 L. G. Scantlebury Smead,62 S. Schael,13 M. Schellenberg,14M. Schiller,58H. Schindler,47M. Schmelling,15T. Schmelzer,14B. Schmidt,47O. Schneider,48 A. Schopper,47M. Schubiger,31S. Schulte,48M. H. Schune,11R. Schwemmer,47B. Sciascia,22A. Sciubba,30S. Sellam,68
A. Semennikov,38 A. Sergi,52,47N. Serra,49 J. Serrano,10 L. Sestini,27A. Seuthe,14P. Seyfert,47D. M. Shangase,84 M. Shapkin,43I. Shchemerov,80 L. Shchutska,48T. Shears,59L. Shekhtman,42,vV. Shevchenko,79E. B. Shields,24,i E. Shmanin,80J. D. Shupperd,67B. G. Siddi,20R. Silva Coutinho,49G. Simi,27S. Simone,18,dI. Skiba,20,gN. Skidmore,74 T. Skwarnicki,67M. W. Slater,52J. C. Smallwood,62J. G. Smeaton,54A. Smetkina,38E. Smith,13M. Smith,60A. Snoch,31 M. Soares,19L. Soares Lavra,9M. D. Sokoloff,64F. J. P. Soler,58A. Solovev,37I. Solovyev,37 F. L. Souza De Almeida,2 B. Souza De Paula,2 B. Spaan,14E. Spadaro Norella,25,o P. Spradlin,58F. Stagni,47M. Stahl,64S. Stahl,47P. Stefko,48
O. Steinkamp,49,80 S. Stemmle,16O. Stenyakin,43H. Stevens,14S. Stone,67M. E. Stramaglia,48M. Straticiuc,36 D. Strekalina,80S. Strokov,82F. Suljik,62J. Sun,26 L. Sun,72Y. Sun,65P. Svihra,61P. N. Swallow,52 K. Swientek,34
A. Szabelski,35T. Szumlak,34M. Szymanski,47S. Taneja,61Z. Tang,3 T. Tekampe,14F. Teubert,47E. Thomas,47 K. A. Thomson,59M. J. Tilley,60V. Tisserand,9S. T’Jampens,8M. Tobin,6S. Tolk,47L. Tomassetti,20,gD. Torres Machado,1 D. Y. Tou,12M. Traill,58M. T. Tran,48E. Trifonova,80C. Trippl,48A. Tsaregorodtsev,10G. Tuci,28,nA. Tully,48N. Tuning,31 A. Ukleja,35 D. J. Unverzagt,16 A. Usachov,31A. Ustyuzhanin,41,81U. Uwer,16A. Vagner,82V. Vagnoni,19A. Valassi,47
G. Valenti,19 M. van Beuzekom,31H. Van Hecke,66E. van Herwijnen,80 C. B. Van Hulse,17M. van Veghel,77 R. Vazquez Gomez,45P. Vazquez Regueiro,45C. Vázquez Sierra,31S. Vecchi,20J. J. Velthuis,53M. Veltri,21,p A. Venkateswaran,67M. Veronesi,31M. Vesterinen,55D. Vieira,64M. Vieites Diaz,48H. Viemann,75X. Vilasis-Cardona,83
E. Vilella Figueras,59P. Vincent,12G. Vitali,28A. Vitkovskiy,31 A. Vollhardt,49D. Vom Bruch,12A. Vorobyev,37 V. Vorobyev,42,vN. Voropaev,37R. Waldi,75J. Walsh,28C. Wang,16J. Wang,3J. Wang,72J. Wang,4J. Wang,6M. Wang,3 R. Wang,53Y. Wang,7Z. Wang,49D. R. Ward,54H. M. Wark,59N. K. Watson,52S. G. Weber,12D. Websdale,60C. Weisser,63
B. D. C. Westhenry,53D. J. White,61M. Whitehead,53D. Wiedner,14G. Wilkinson,62M. Wilkinson,67 I. Williams,54 M. Williams,63,69M. R. J. Williams,61F. F. Wilson,56W. Wislicki,35M. Witek,33L. Witola,16G. Wormser,11S. A. Wotton,54 H. Wu,67K. Wyllie,47Z. Xiang,5D. Xiao,7Y. Xie,7H. Xing,71A. Xu,4J. Xu,5L. Xu,3M. Xu,7Q. Xu,5Z. Xu,5Z. Xu,4 D. Yang,3 Y. Yang,5 Z. Yang,3 Z. Yang,65Y. Yao,67 L. E. Yeomans,59 H. Yin,7 J. Yu,7X. Yuan,67O. Yushchenko,43 K. A. Zarebski,52M. Zavertyaev,15,c M. Zdybal,33O. Zenaiev,47M. Zeng,3D. Zhang,7L. Zhang,3S. Zhang,4 Y. Zhang,47
A. Zhelezov,16Y. Zheng,5 X. Zhou,5Y. Zhou,5 X. Zhu,3 V. Zhukov,13,39J. B. Zonneveld,57S. Zucchelli,19,e D. Zuliani,27 and G. Zunica61
(LHCb Collaboration)
1
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 3
Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
4School of Physics State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University,
Beijing, China
5
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
6
Institute Of High Energy Physics (IHEP), Beijing, China
7
Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei, China
8
Universit´e Grenoble Alpes, Universit´e Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, IN2P3-LAPP, Annecy, France
9
Universit´e Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
10
Aix Marseille Universit´e, CNRS/IN2P3, CPPM, Marseille, France
11
Universit´e Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, Orsay, France
12
LPNHE, Sorbonne Universit´e, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
13
I. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
14
Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
15
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
16
Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
17
School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
18
INFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy
19
INFN Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
20
INFN Sezione di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
21
INFN Sezione di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
22
INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
23
INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy
24
INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy
25
INFN Sezione di Milano, Milano, Italy
26
INFN Sezione di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy
27
Universita degli Studi di Padova, Universita e INFN, Padova, Padova, Italy
28
INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
29
INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
30
INFN Sezione di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
31
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands
32
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
33Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland 34
AGH—University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Kraków, Poland
35
National Center for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), Warsaw, Poland
36Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania 37
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute NRC Kurchatov Institute (PNPI NRC KI), Gatchina, Russia
38Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (ITEP NRC KI),
Moscow, Russia, Moscow, Russia
39
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia
40
Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAS), Moscow, Russia
41
Yandex School of Data Analysis, Moscow, Russia
42
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS), Novosibirsk, Russia
43
Institute for High Energy Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (IHEP NRC KI), Protvino, Russia, Protvino, Russia
44
ICCUB, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
45
Instituto Galego de Física de Altas Enerxías (IGFAE), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
46
Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular, Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia—CSIC, Valencia, Spain
47
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
48
Institute of Physics, Ecole Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
49
50NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine 51
Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine
52University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom 53
H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
54Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom 55
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
56STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom 57
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
58School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom 59
Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
60Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom 61
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
62Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom 63
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
64University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 65
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA
66Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA 67
Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA
68Laboratory of Mathematical and Subatomic Physics, Constantine, Algeria [associated with
Universi-dade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil]
69School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (associated with
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom)
70Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [associated with
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil]
71Guangdong Provencial Key Laboratory of Nuclear Science, Institute of Quantum Matter, South China
Normal University, Guangzhou, China (associated with Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)
72
School of Physics and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China (associated with Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China)
73
Departamento de Fisica, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia (associated with LPNHE, Sorbonne Universit´e, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France)
74
Universität Bonn—Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen und Kernphysik, Bonn, Germany (associated with Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany)
75
Institut für Physik, Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany (associated with Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany)
76
INFN Sezione di Perugia, Perugia, Italy (associated with INFN Sezione di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy)
77Van Swinderen Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands (associated with Nikhef
National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands)
78Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands (associated with Nikhef National Institute for
Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, Netherlands)
79National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia [associated with Institute of Theoretical
and Experimental Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (ITEP NRC KI), Moscow, Russia]
80National University of Science and Technology“MISIS”, Moscow, Russia [associated with Institute of
Theoretical and Experimental Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (ITEP NRC KI), Moscow, Russia]
81National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
(associated with Yandex School of Data Analysis, Moscow, Russia)
82National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia [associated with Institute of Theoretical
and Experimental Physics NRC Kurchatov Institute (ITEP NRC KI), Moscow, Russia]
83DS4DS, La Salle, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain (associated with ICCUB,
Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain)
84University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA (associated with Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New York, USA)
85Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Palaiseau, France 86
AGH—University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Kraków, Poland
a
Also at Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba-MG, Brazil. bAlso at Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Palaiseau, France.
c
Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Russian Academy of Science (LPI RAS), Moscow, Russia. dAlso at Universit`a di Bari, Bari, Italy.
eAlso at Universit`a di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. f
Also at Universit`a di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy. gAlso at Universit`a di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. h
Also at Universit`a di Genova, Genova, Italy. iAlso at Universit`a di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy. j
Also at Universit`a di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy.
kAlso at AGH - University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Kraków, Poland.
lAlso at Hanoi University of Science, Hanoi, Vietnam. m
Also at Universit`a di Padova, Padova, Italy. nAlso at Universit`a di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. o
Also at Universit`a degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy. pAlso at Universit`a di Urbino, Urbino, Italy.
q
Also at Universit`a della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy. rAlso at Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy. s
Also at Universit`a di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. tAlso at Universit`a di Siena, Siena, Italy.
u
Also at MSU - Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT), Iligan, Philippines. vAlso at Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia.
w
