Measurement of the Relative Branching Fraction of Υ(4S)\Upsilon(4S) to Charged and Neutral B-Meson Pairs

We analyze 9.7 x 10^6 B\bar{B}$ pairs recorded with the CLEO detector to determine the production ratio of charged to neutral B-meson pairs produced at the Y(4S) resonance. We measure the rates for B^0 -> J/psi K^{(*)0} and B^+ -> J/psi K^{(*)+} decays and use the world-average B-meson lifetime ratio to extract the relative widths f+-/f00 = Gamma(Y(4S) -> B+B-)/Gamma(Y(4S) -> B0\bar{B0}) = = 1.04 +/- 0.07(stat) +/- 0.04(syst). With the assumption that f+- + f00 = 1, we obtain f00 = 0.49 +/- 0.02(stat) +/- 0.01(syst) and f+- = 0.51 +/- 0.02(stat) +/- 0.01(syst). This production ratio and its uncertainty apply to all exclusive B-meson branching fractions measured at the Y(4S) resonance.Comment: 11 pages postscript, also available through http://w4.lns.cornell.edu/public/CLN

First Observation of the Decays B0→D∗−ppˉπ+B^{0}\to D^{*-}p\bar{p}\pi^{+} and B^{0}\to D^{*-}p\bar{n}$

We report the first observation of exclusive decays of the type B to D^* N anti-N X, where N is a nucleon. Using a sample of 9.7 times 10^{6} B-Bbar pairs collected with the CLEO detector operating at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring, we measure the branching fractions B(B^0 \to D^{*-} proton antiproton \pi^+) = ({6.5}^{+1.3}_{-1.2} +- 1.0) \times 10^{-4} and B(B^0 \to D^{*-} proton antineutron) = ({14.5}^{+3.4}_{-3.0} +- 2.7) times 10^{-4}. Antineutrons are identified by their annihilation in the CsI electromagnetic calorimeter.Comment: 9 pages postscript, also available through http://w4.lns.cornell.edu/public/CLN

Study of the Decays B0 --> D(*)+D(*)-

The decays B0 --> D*+D*-, B0 --> D*+D- and B0 --> D+D- are studied in 9.7 million Y(4S) --> BBbar decays accumulated with the CLEO detector. We determine Br(B0 --> D*+D*-) = (9.9+4.2-3.3+-1.2)e-4 and limit Br(B0 --> D*+D-) < 6.3e-4 and Br(B0 --> D+D-) < 9.4e-4 at 90% confidence level (CL). We also perform the first angular analysis of the B0 --> D*+D*- decay and determine that the CP-even fraction of the final state is greater than 0.11 at 90% CL. Future measurements of the time dependence of these decays may be useful for the investigation of CP violation in neutral B meson decays.Comment: 21 pages, 5 figures, submitted to Phys. Rev.

A Search for B→τνB\to \tau\nu

We report results of a search for $B\to\tau\nu$ in a sample of 9.7 million charged $B$ meson decays. The search uses both $\pi\nu$ and $\ell\nu\bar\nu$ decay modes of the $\tau$, and demands exclusive reconstruction of the companion $\bar B$ decay to suppress background. We set an upper limit on the branching fraction ${\cal B}(B\to \tau\nu) < 8.4\times 10^{-4}$ at 90% confidence level. With slight modification to the analysis we also establish ${\cal B}(B^\pm\to K^\pm\nu\bar\nu) < 2.4\times 10^{-4}$ at 90% confidence level.Comment: 10 ages postscript, also available through http://w4.lns.cornell.edu/public/CLN

Measurements of B --> D_s^{(*)+} D^{*(*)} Branching Fractions

This article describes improved measurements by CLEO of the $B^0 \to D_s^+ D^{*-}$ and $B^0 \to D_s^{*+} D^{*-}$ branching fractions, and first evidence for the decay $B^+ \to D_s^{(*)+} \bar{D}^{**0}$, where $\bar{D}^{**0}$ represents the sum of the $\bar{D}_1(2420)^0$, $\bar{D}_2^*(2460)^0$, and $\bar{D}_1(j=1/2)^0$ L=1 charm meson states. Also reported is the first measurement of the $D_s^{*+}$ polarization in the decay $B^0 \to D_s^{*+} D^{*-}$. A partial reconstruction technique, employing only the fully reconstructed $D_s^+$ and slow pion $\pi_s^-$ from the $D^{*-} \to \bar{D}^0 \pi^-_s$ decay, enhances sensitivity. The observed branching fractions are ${\mathcal B} (B^0 \to D_s^+ D^{*-}) = (1.10 \pm 0.18 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.28)$, ${\mathcal B} (B^0 \to D_s^{*+} D^{*-}) = (1.82 \pm 0.37 \pm 0.24 \pm 0.46)$, and ${\mathcal B} (B^+ \to D_s^{(*)+} \bar{D}^{**0}) = (2.73 \pm 0.78 \pm 0.48 \pm 0.68)$, where the first error is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the uncertainty in the $D_s^+ \to \phi \pi^+$ branching fraction. The measured $D_s^{*+}$ longitudinal polarization, $\Gamma_L/\Gamma = (50.6 \pm 13.9 \pm 3.6)$, is consistent with the factorization prediction of 54%.Comment: 26 pages (LaTeX), 15 figures. To be submitted to PR

Precise Measurement of B^{0}\to \bar{B^{0} Mixing Parameters at the Υ(\Upsilon(S)$

We describe a measurement of B^0-B^0bar mixing parameters exploiting a method of partial reconstruction of the decay chains B0 -> D^{*-}\pi^+ and B0 -> D^{*-}\rho^+. Using 9.6 x 10^6 BBbar pairs collected at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring, we find \chi_d = 0.198 +- 0.013 +- 0.014, |y_d|<0.41 at 95% confidence level, and |Re(\epsilon_B)|<0.034 at 95% confidence level.Comment: 11 pages postscript, also available through http://w4.lns.cornell.edu/public/CLN

Measurement of B(/\c->pKpi)

The /\c->pKpi yield has been measured in a sample of two-jet continuum events containing a both an anticharm tag (Dbar) as well as an antiproton (e+e- -> Dbar pbar X), with the antiproton in the hemisphere opposite the Dbar. Under the hypothesis that such selection criteria tag e+e- -> Dbar pbar (/\c) X events, the /\c->pkpi branching fraction can be determined by measuring the pkpi yield in the same hemisphere as the antiprotons in our Dbar pbar X sample. Combining our results from three independent types of anticharm tags, we obtain B(/\c->pKpi)=(5.0+/-0.5+/-1.2)

Effective Rheology of Bubbles Moving in a Capillary Tube

We calculate the average volumetric flux versus pressure drop of bubbles moving in a single capillary tube with varying diameter, finding a square-root relation from mapping the flow equations onto that of a driven overdamped pendulum. The calculation is based on a derivation of the equation of motion of a bubble train from considering the capillary forces and the entropy production associated with the viscous flow. We also calculate the configurational probability of the positions of the bubbles.Comment: 4 pages, 1 figur

Stochastic upscaling of hydrodynamic dispersion and retardation factor in a physically and chemically heterogeneous tropical soil

[EN] Stochastic upscaling of flow and reactive solute transport in a tropical soil is performed using real data collected in the laboratory. Upscaling of hydraulic conductivity, longitudinal hydrodynamic dispersion, and retardation factor were done using three different approaches of varying complexity. How uncertainty propagates after upscaling was also studied. The results show that upscaling must be taken into account if a good reproduction of the flow and transport behavior of a given soil is to be attained when modeled at larger than laboratory scales. The results also show that arrival time uncertainty was well reproduced after solute transport upscaling. This work represents a first demonstration of flow and reactive transport upscaling in a soil based on laboratory data. It also shows how simple upscaling methods can be incorporated into daily modeling practice using commercial flow and transport codes.The authors thank the financial support by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (Project 401441/2014-8). The doctoral fellowship award to the first author by the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES) is acknowledged. The first author also thanks the international mobility grant awarded by CNPq, through the Sciences Without Borders program (Grant Number: 200597/2015-9). The international mobility grant awarded by Santander Mobility in cooperation with the University of Sao Paulo is also acknowledged. DHI-WASI is gratefully thanked for providing a FEFLOW license.Almeida De-Godoy, V.; Zuquette, L.; Gómez-Hernández, JJ. (2019). Stochastic upscaling of hydrodynamic dispersion and retardation factor in a physically and chemically heterogeneous tropical soil. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment. 33(1):201-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1624-zS201216331Ahuja LR, Naney JW, Green RE, Nielsen DR (1984) Macroporosity to characterize spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity and effects of land management. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48:699. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1984.03615995004800040001xBellin A, Lawrence AE, Rubin Y (2004) Models of sub-grid variability in numerical simulations of solute transport in heterogeneous porous formations: three-dimensional flow and effect of pore-scale dispersion. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 18:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-003-0164-2Brent RP (1973) Algorithms for minimization without derivatives. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsBrusseau ML (1998) Non-ideal transport of reactive solutes in heterogeneous porous media: 3. model testing and data analysis using calibration versus prediction. J Hydrol 209:147–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00121-8Brusseau ML, Srivastava R (1999) Nonideal transport of reactive solutes in heterogeneous porous media: 4. Analysis of the cape cod natural-gradient field experiment. Water Resour Res 35:1113–1125. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998WR900019Brutsaert W (1967) Some methods of calculating unsaturated permeability. Trans ASAE 10:400–404Cadini F, De Sanctis J, Bertoli I, Zio E (2013) Upscaling of a dual-permeability Monte Carlo simulation model for contaminant transport in fractured networks by genetic algorithm parameter identification. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27:505–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-012-0595-8Cambardella CA, Moorman TB, Parkin TB, Karlen DL, Novak JM, Turco RF, Konopka AE (1994) Field-scale variability of soil properties in central iowa soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:1501. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800050033xCapilla JE, Rodrigo J, Gómez-Hernández JJ (1999) Simulation of non-Gaussian transmissivity fields honoring piezometric data and integrating soft and secondary information. Math Geol 31:907–927. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007580902175Cassiraga EF, Fernàndez-Garcia D, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2005) Performance assessment of solute transport upscaling methods in the context of nuclear waste disposal. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:756–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.03.013Corey AT (1977) Mechanics of heterogeneous fluids in porous media. Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO, p 259Dagan G (1989) Flow and transport in porous formations. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-75015-1Dagan G (2004) On application of stochastic modeling of groundwater flow and transport. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-004-0191-7de Azevedo AAB, Pressinotti MMN, Massoli M (1981) Sedimentological studies of the Botucatu and Pirambóia formations in the region of Santa Rita do Passa Quatro (In portuguese). Rev do Inst Geológico 2:31–38. https://doi.org/10.5935/0100-929X.19810003Deng H, Dai Z, Wolfsberg AV, Ye M, Stauffer PH, Lu Z, Kwicklis E (2013) Upscaling retardation factor in hierarchical porous media with multimodal reactive mineral facies. Chemosphere 91:248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.10.105Diersch H-JG (2014) Finite element modeling of flow, mass and heat transport in porous and fractured media. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38739-5Dippenaar MA (2014) Porosity reviewed: quantitative multi-disciplinary understanding, recent advances and applications in vadose zone hydrology. Geotech Geol Eng 32:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9704-9Fagundes JRT, Zuquette LV (2011) Sorption behavior of the sandy residual unconsolidated materials from the sandstones of the Botucatu Formation, the main aquifer of Brazil. Environ Earth Sci 62:831–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0570-yFenton GA, Griffiths DV (2008) Risk assessment in geotechnical engineering. Wiley, p 463Fernàndez-Garcia D, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2007) Impact of upscaling on solute transport: Traveltimes, scale dependence of dispersivity, and propagation of uncertainty. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004727Fernàndez-Garcia D, Llerar-Meza G, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2009) Upscaling transport with mass transfer models: mean behavior and propagation of uncertainty. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR007764Feyen L, Gómez-Hernández JJ, Ribeiro PJ, Beven KJ, De Smedt F (2003a) A Bayesian approach to stochastic capture zone delineation incorporating tracer arrival times, conductivity measurements, and hydraulic head observations. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001544Feyen L, Ribeiro PJ, Gómez-Hernández JJ, Beven KJ, De Smedt F (2003b) Bayesian methodology for stochastic capture zone delineation incorporating transmissivity measurements and hydraulic head observations. J Hydrol 271:156–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00314-1Forsythe GE, Malcolm MA, Moler CB (1976) Computer methods for mathematical computations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 259Freeze R, Cherry J (1979) Groundwater. PrenticeHall Inc, Englewood cliffs, p 604Frippiat CC, Holeyman AE (2008) A comparative review of upscaling methods for solute transport in heterogeneous porous media. J Hydrol 362:150–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.08.015Fu J, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2009) Uncertainty assessment and data worth in groundwater flow and mass transport modeling using a blocking Markov chain Monte Carlo method. J Hydrol 364:328–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.11.014Gelhar LW, Axness CL (1983) Three-dimensional stochastic analysis of macrodispersion in aquifers. Water Resour Res 19:161–180. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR019i001p00161Gelhar LW, Welty C, Rehfeldt KR (1992) A critical review of data on field-scale dispersion in aquifers. Water Resour Res 28:1955–1974. https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR00607Giacheti HL, Rohm SA, Nogueira JB, Cintra JCA (1993) Geotechnical properties of the Cenozoic sediment (in protuguese). In: Albiero JH, Cintra JCA (eds) Soil from the interior of São Paulo. ABMS, Sao Paulo, pp 143–175Gómez-Hernandez JJ (1990) A stochastic approach to the simulation of block conductivity fields conditional upon data measured at a smaller scale. Stanford University, StanfordGómez-Hernández JJ, Gorelick SM (1989) Effective groundwater model parameter values: influence of spatial variabiity of hydraulic conductivity, leackance, and recharge. Water Resour Res 25:405–419Gómez-Hernández JJ, Journel A (1993) Joint sequential simulation of multigaussian fields. In: Geostatistics Tróia’92. pp 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1739-5_8Gómez-Hernández JJ, Wen X-H (1994) Probabilistic assessment of travel times in groundwater modeling. Stoch Hydrol Hydraul 8:19–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01581389Gómez-Hernández JJ, Fu J, Fernandez-Garcia D (2006) Upscaling retardation factors in 2-D porous media. In: Bierkens MFP, Gehrels JC, Kovar K (eds) Calibration and reliability in groundwater modelling: from uncertainty to decision making: proceedings of the ModelCARE 2005 conference held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 6–9 June, 2005. IAHS Publication, pp 130–136Goovaerts P (1999) Geostatistics in soil science: state-of-the-art and perspectives. Geoderma 89:1–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(98)00078-0Jarvis NJ (2007) A review of non-equilibrium water fl ow and solute transport in soil macropores: principles, controlling factors and consequences for water quality. Eur J Soil Sci 58:523–546. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss2011-050Jellali S, Diamantopoulos E, Kallali H, Bennaceur S, Anane M, Jedidi N (2010) Dynamic sorption of ammonium by sandy soil in fixed bed columns: evaluation of equilibrium and non-equilibrium transport processes. J Environ Manag 91:897–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.11.006Journel AG, Gomez-Hernandez JJ (1993) Stochastic imaging of the wilmington clastic sequence. SPE Form Eval 8:33–40. https://doi.org/10.2118/19857-PAJournel A, Deutsch C, Desbarats A (1986) Power averaging for block effective permeability. Proc SPE Calif Reg Meet. https://doi.org/10.2118/15128-MSKronberg BI, Fyfe WS, Leonardos OH, Santos AM (1979) The chemistry of some Brazilian soils: element mobility during intense weathering. Chem Geol 24:211–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541(79)90124-4Lake LW (1988) The origins of anisotropy (includes associated papers 18394 and 18458). J Pet Technol 40:395–396. https://doi.org/10.2118/17652-PALawrence AE, Rubin Y (2007) Block-effective macrodispersion for numerical simulations of sorbing solute transport in heterogeneous porous formations. Adv Water Resour 30:1272–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.11.005Lemke LD, Barrack WA II, Abriola LM, Goovaerts P (2004) Matching solute breakthrough with deterministic and stochastic aquifer models. Groundwater 42:920–934Li L, Zhou H, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2011a) A comparative study of three-dimensional hydraulic conductivity upscaling at the macro-dispersion experiment (MADE) site, Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi (USA). J Hydrol 404:278–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.05.001Li L, Zhou H, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2011b) Transport upscaling using multi-rate mass transfer in three-dimensional highly heterogeneous porous media. Adv Water Resour 34:478–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.01.001Logsdon Keller KE, Moorman TB (2002) Measured and predicted solute leaching from multiple undisturbed soil columns. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:686–695. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.6860Lourens A, van Geer FC (2016) Uncertainty propagation of arbitrary probability density functions applied to upscaling of transmissivities. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30:237–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1075-8Mahapatra IC, Singh KN, Pillai KG, Bapat SR (1985) Rice soils and their management. Indian J Agron 30:R1–R41Morakinyo JA, Mackay R (2006) Geostatistical modelling of ground conditions to support the assessment of site contamination. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 20:106–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-005-0015-4Moslehi M, de Barros FPJ, Ebrahimi F, Sahimi M (2016) Upscaling of solute transport in disordered porous media by wavelet transformations. Adv Water Resour 96:180–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.07.013Osinubi KJ, Nwaiwu CM (2005) Hydraulic conductivity of compacted lateritic soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:1034–1041. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:8(1034)Remy N (2004) SGeMS: stanford geostatistical modeling software. Softw Man. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3610-1_89Renard P, de Marsily G (1997) Calculating equivalent permeability: a review. Adv Water Resour 20:253–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(96)00050-4Robin MJL, Sudicky EA, Gillham RW, Kachanoski RG (1991) Spatial variability of strontium distribution coefficients and their correlation with hydraulic conductivity in the Canadian forces base borden aquifer. Water Resour Res 27:2619–2632. https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR01107Salamon P, Fernàndez-Garcia D, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2007) Modeling tracer transport at the MADE site: the importance of heterogeneity. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005522Sánchez-Vila X, Carrera J, Girardi JP (1996) Scale effects in transmissivity. J Hydrol 183:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)80031-XScheibe T, Yabusaki S (1998) Scaling of flow and transport behavior in heterogeneous groundwater systems. Adv Water Resour 22:223–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(98)00014-1Selvadurai PA, Selvadurai APS (2014) On the effective permeability of a heterogeneous porous medium: the role of the geometric mean. Philos Mag 94:2318–2338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786435.2014.913111Shackelford CD (1994) Critical concepts for column testing. J Geotech Eng 120:1804–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(95)96996-OŠimůnek J, van Genuchten MT, Šejna M, Toride N, Leij FJ (1999) The STANMOD computer software for evaluating solute transport in porous media using analytical solutions of convection-dispersion equation. Riverside, CaliforniaTaskinen A, Sirviö H, Bruen M (2008) Modelling effects of spatial variability of saturated hydraulic conductivity on autocorrelated overland flow data: linear mixed model approach. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 22:67–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-006-0099-5Tuli A, Hopmans JW, Rolston DE, Moldrup P (2005) Comparison of air and water permeability between disturbed and undisturbed soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1361. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.0332Tyukhova AR, Willmann M (2016) Conservative transport upscaling based on information of connectivity. Water Resour Res 52:6867–6880. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018331van Genuchten MTh (1980) Determining transport parameters from solute displacement experiments. Research Report 118. U.S. Salinity Lab., Riverside, CAVanderborght J, Timmerman A, Feyen J (2000) Solute transport for steady-state and transient flow in soils with and without macropores. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:1305–1317. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6441305xVanmarcke E (2010) Random fields: analysis and synthesis. World Scientific. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 364Vishal V, Leung JY (2017) Statistical scale-up of 3D particle-tracking simulation for non-Fickian dispersive solute transport modeling. Environ Res Risk Assess, Stoch. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1501-1Wen X-H, Gómez-Hernández JJ (1996) Upscaling hydraulic conductivities in heterogeneous media: an overview. J Hydrol 183:ix–xxxii. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)80030-8Wen XH, Gómez-Hernández JJ (1998) Numerical modeling of macrodispersion in heterogeneous media: a comparison of multi-Gaussian and non-multi-Gaussian models. J Contam Hydrol 30:129–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(97)00035-1Wen XH, Capilla JE, Deutsch CV, Gómez-Hernández JJ, Cullick AS (1999) A program to create permeability fields that honor single-phase flow rate and pressure data. Comput Geosci 25:217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(98)00126-5Wilding LP, Drees LR (1983) Spatial variability and pedology. In: Wilding LP, Smeck NE, Hall GF (eds) Pedogenesis and soil taxonomy: the soil orders. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 83–116Willmann M, Carrera J, Guadagnini A (2006) Block-upscaling of transport in heterogeneous aquifers. h2ogeo.upc.edu 1–7Xu Z, Meakin P (2013) Upscaling of solute transport in heterogeneous media with non-uniform flow and dispersion fields. Appl Math Model 37:8533–8542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.03.070Zech A, Attinger S, Cvetkovic V, Dagan G, Dietrich P, Fiori A, Rubin Y, Teutsch G (2015) Is unique scaling of aquifer macrodispersivity supported by field data? Water Resour Res 51:7662–7679. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017220Zhou H, Li L, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2010) Three-dimensional hydraulic conductivity upscaling in groundwater modeling. Comput Geosci 36:1224–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2010.03.008Zhou H, Li L, Hendricks Franssen H-J, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2012) Pattern recognition in a bimodal aquifer using the normal-score ensemble Kalman filter. Math Geosci 44:169–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-011-9372-

First Observation of the Decay B0→D∗+D∗−B^{0}\to D^{*+}D^{*-}

We have observed four fully reconstructed B0 -> D*+D*- candidates in 5.8 million Upsilon(4S) -> BBbar decays recorded with the CLEO detector. The background is estimated to be 0.31 +- 0.10 events. The probability that the background could produce four or more signal candidates with the observed distribution among D*+ and D*- decay modes is 1.1 X 10^{-4}. The measured decay rate, Br(B0 -> D*+D*-) = [6.2 +4.0-2.9 (stat) +- 1.0(syst)] X 10^{-4}, is large enough for this decay mode to be of interest for the measurement of a time-dependent CP asymmetry.Comment: 10 pages, postscript file also available through http://w4.lns.cornell.edu/public/CLN