Based on 4.481 × 108 ψ (3686) events collected with the BESIII detector at BEPCII, the branching fraction of the isospin violating decay ψ (3686) → Σ0 Λ + c . c . is measured to be (1.60 ± 0.31 ± ...0.13 ± 0.58) × 10−6, where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic, and the third is the uncertainty arising from interference with the continuum. This result is significantly smaller than the measurement based on CLEO-c data sets. The decays χcJ → Λ¯Λ are measured via ψ ( 3686 ) → γχcJ, and the branching fractions are determined to be B ( χc0 → Λ¯Λ ) = (3.64 ± 0.10 ± 0.10 ± 0.07) × 10−4 , B (χc1 → Λ¯Λ) = ( 1.31 ± 0.06 ± 0.06 ± 0.03 ) × 10−4 , B (χc2 → Λ¯Λ) = ( 1.91 ± 0.08 ± 0.17 ± 0.04 ) × 10−4 , where the third uncertainties are systematic due to the ψ (3686) → γχcJ branching fractions.
Full text
Available for:
CMK, CTK, FMFMET, IJS, NUK, PNG, UM
The EU’s green transition started with the establishment of long-term goals but now requires short-term actions. It is a constant balancing act to achieve these goals while also responding to new ...problems and challenges. The time frame for reaching the ambitious climate target is short in terms of undertaking a deep transformation but long enough to expect unforeseen events. Europe’s green transformation must include intermediate steps, with the most important short-term deadline being 2030, when CO2 emissions are expected to have been reduced by 55%. This goal cannot be achieved without a thorough industrial and economic transformation. However, the funds available for the transformation are limited and diluted by more pressing immediate needs: Russia’s war against Ukraine has increased global economic uncertainty, value chains have been distorted and EU–US policy divergences are increasing. In other words, Europe needs to reduce its emissions at a time of economic uncertainty, geopolitical tensions and increasing energy pressures.
In his description of the terrace of Olympia, Pausanias mentions only ten treasures, although twelve buildings were found during excavations. Only five of them are identified with certainty. This ...uncertainty in identification is the main focus of this article, in which an attempt is made to definitively assign an identity to each treasure, not only from an archaeological point of view.
We report the observation of a new structure in the Λb0π+π− spectrum using the full LHCb data set of pp collisions, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 9 fb−1, collected at s=7, 8, and 13 ...TeV. A study of the structure suggests its interpretation as a superposition of two almost degenerate narrow states. The masses and widths of these states are measured to be mΛb(6146)0=6146.17±0.33±0.22±0.16 MeV,mΛb(6152)0=6152.51±0.26±0.22±0.16 MeV,ΓΛb(6146)0=2.9±1.3±0.3 MeV,ΓΛb(6152)0=2.1±0.8±0.3 MeV,with a mass splitting of Δm=6.34±0.32±0.02 MeV, where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic. The third uncertainty for the mass measurements derives from the knowledge of the mass of the Λb0 baryon. The measured masses and widths of these new excited states suggest their possible interpretation as a doublet of Λb(1D)0 states.
Full text
Available for:
CMK, CTK, FMFMET, IJS, NUK, PNG, UL, UM
Despite progresses in representing different processes, hydrological models remain uncertain. Their uncertainty stems from input and calibration data, model structure, and parameters. In ...characterizing these sources, their causes, interactions and different uncertainty analysis (UA) methods are reviewed. The commonly used UA methods are categorized into six broad classes: (i) Monte Carlo analysis, (ii) Bayesian statistics, (iii) multi-objective analysis, (iv) least-squares-based inverse modeling, (v) response-surface-based techniques, and (vi) multi-modeling analysis. For each source of uncertainty, the status-quo and applications of these methods are critiqued in gauged catchments where UA is common and in ungauged catchments where both UA and its review are lacking. Compared to parameter uncertainty, UA application for structural uncertainty is limited while input and calibration data uncertainties are mostly unaccounted. Further research is needed to improve the computational efficiency of UA, disentangle and propagate the different sources of uncertainty, improve UA applications to environmental changes and coupled human–natural-hydrologic systems, and ease UA’s applications for practitioners.
This reprint focuses on a very important topic in metrology, which is represent by measurement uncertainty. Any good metrologist or scientist in engineering knows that no measurement makes sense ...without an associated uncertainty value: without an uncertainty value, no decision can be taken; no comparisons can be made; no conformity can be assessed. Any decision, comparison or conformity assessment made without considering the measurement uncertainty affecting the measurement value is completely useless and meaningless. Stated that, it becomes very clear that uncertainty in measurement plays indeed a very important rule in our everyday life. This is the reason why there is a great need to have a fruitful academic and scientific discussion on this topic. We have been speaking about measurement uncertainty for less than 30 years, since the concept of “measurement uncertainty” has been introduced in 1995 by the “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement” (GUM). Thirty years seems to be many, but still the concept of measurement uncertainty has not been spread worldwide and the GUM is a document that is not known everywhere. On the other hand, this document should be considered not only in academic scenario, but also in any technical and industrial scenario, where it is pivotal to know the meaning of measurement uncertainty, identify the uncertainty contributions and know how these contributions affect the final measurement result.
We analyze the universal radiative correction ΔRV to neutron and superallowed nuclear β decay by expressing the hadronic γW-box contribution in terms of a dispersion relation, which we identify as an ...integral over the first Nachtmann moment of the γW interference structure function F3(0). By connecting the needed input to existing data on neutrino and antineutrino scattering, we obtain an updated value of ΔRV=0.02467(22), wherein the hadronic uncertainty is reduced. Assuming other standard model theoretical calculations and experimental measurements remain unchanged, we obtain an updated value of |Vud|=0.97370(14), raising tension with the first row Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa unitarity constraint. We comment on ways current and future experiments can provide input to our dispersive analysis.
Full text
Available for:
CMK, CTK, FMFMET, IJS, NUK, PNG, UL, UM
•This paper addresses a great (and not well investigated) challenge in open innovation projects: the uncertainty propagation.•This paper presents a framework of uncertainty propagation assessment for ...interorganizational open innovation projects.•We identify three distinct approaches to mitigate the detrimental impact of uncertainty assessment.•Understanding the consequences of uncertainty propagation in interorganizational open innovation projects leads to positive project performance.•We increase the portfolio of project management approaches to counter uncertainty in open innovation projects.
Consider an interorganizational open innovation project, in which different organizations cooperate to generate value for clients or to solve a technological problem. In this setting, both the focal firm and the partners face uncertainties over time (e.g., technological uncertainties, market uncertainties) and, therefore, the performance of the focal firm and the overall interorganizational project depend on that firm's ability to assess potential uncertainties. The process of diffusion of a particular uncertainty throughout an inter-organizational project can be defined as uncertainty propagation. Assessment of uncertainty propagation can be employed to mitigate its detrimental impact. This paper connects previous studies of open innovation, uncertainty management and project management by providing a comprehensive, but structured, framework to assess uncertainty propagation. First, we propose the underlying causes of uncertainty propagation. Then, we present the three different approaches to its assessment, based on causes, effects and protection.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
