4.8 Article

Strong Constraints on the Rare Decays Bs0 → μ+μ- and B0 → μ+μ-

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 108, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.231801

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. CNPq
  3. FAPERJ
  4. FINEP (Brazil)
  5. CERN
  6. NSFC (China)
  7. CNRS/IN2P3 (France)
  8. BMBF
  9. DFG
  10. HGF
  11. MPG (Germany)
  12. SFI (Ireland)
  13. INFN (Italy)
  14. FOM
  15. NWO (The Netherlands)
  16. SCSR (Poland)
  17. ANCS (Romania)
  18. MinES of Russia and Rosatom (Russia)
  19. MICINN
  20. XuntaGal
  21. GENCAT (Spain)
  22. SNSF
  23. SER (Switzerland)
  24. NAS Ukraine (Ukraine)
  25. STFC (United Kingdom)
  26. NSF (USA)
  27. ERC
  28. Region Auvergne
  29. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K001310/1 ATLAS, ST/G005974/1, LHCb Upgrades, ST/L001195/1, ST/K000705/1, ST/H006737/1, ST/K001310/1 LHCb Upgrades, ST/H00100X/2, ST/K001310/1, GRIDPP, ST/K001310/1 ATLAS Upgrades, PP/E000355/1, ST/H00100X/1, ST/K001310/1 LHCb, ST/H001085/2, ST/F008015/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  30. STFC [ST/L001144/1, ST/H00100X/2, PP/E000347/1, ST/G005974/1, ST/K00073X/1, ST/K004646/1, ST/H001093/2, ST/H001069/2, ST/K00140X/1, ST/K000705/1, ST/J004820/1, ST/K000616/1, ST/H001085/2, ST/H006737/1, ST/H00100X/1, ST/H001093/1, ST/L001195/1, ST/F008015/1, ST/L001225/1, PP/E000355/1, ST/I002839/1, ST/J005614/1, LHCb Upgrades, ST/K001361/1, ST/I505572/1, LHCb, PP/E002722/1, ST/G502412/1, ST/F007094/1, ST/M001431/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A search for B-s(0) -> mu(+)mu(-) and B-0 -> mu(+)mu(-) decays is performed using 1.0 fb(-1) of pp collision data collected at root s = 7 TeV with the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. For both decays, the number of observed events is consistent with expectation from background and standard model signal predictions. Upper limits on the branching fractions are determined to be B(B-s(0) -> mu(+)mu(-)) < 4.5(3.8) x 10(-9) and B(B-0 -> mu(+)mu(-)) < 1.0(0.81) x 10(-9) at 95% (90%) confidence level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据