4.7 Article

Searches for rare or forbidden semileptonic charm decays

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 84, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.072006

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. SLAC
  2. US Department of Energy
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada)
  4. Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique (France)
  5. Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules (France)
  6. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (Germany)
  7. Deutsche Foschungsgemeinschaft (Germany)
  8. Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy)
  9. Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (The Netherlands)
  10. Research Council of Norway
  11. Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
  12. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (Spain)
  13. Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom)
  14. European Union
  15. A. P. Sloan Foundation (USA)
  16. Binational Science Foundation (USA-Israel)
  17. National Science Foundation
  18. Division Of Physics
  19. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0969487] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present searches for rare or forbidden charm decays of the form X-c(+) -> h(+/-)l(+/-)l((l)+), where X-c(+) is a charm hadron (D+, D-s(+), or A(c)(+)), h +/- is a pion, kaon, or proton, and l((l)+/-) is an electron or muon. The analysis is based on 384 fb(-1) of e(+)e(-) annihilation data collected at or close to the gamma(4S) resonance with the BABAR detector at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. No significant signal is observed for any of the 35 decay modes that are investigated. We establish 90% confidence-level upper limits on the branching fractions between 1 x 10(-6) and 44 x 10(-6) depending on the channel. In most cases, these results represent either the first limits or significant improvements on existing limits for the decay modes studied.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available