Several recent studies have demonstrated the importance of crustal corrections when inverting surface wave data to model lateral variations in mantle radial anisotropy. It has also been shown that the choice of the prior crustal model to correct the data can strongly influence the anisotropy model and potentially lead to different geodynamic interpretations. In comparing tomographic models of radial anisotropy obtained from different crustal corrections, these studies did not, however, determine quantitative model uncertainties. Nevertheless, mantle models resulting from different prior crustal corrections are statistically different only if the posterior model errors stemming from the non-uniqueness of the inverse problem are smaller than the effect of the crustal correction itself. Here, we applied a model space search approach to global fundamental and higher mode Rayleigh and Love wave phase velocity maps to determine reliable, quantitative model uncertainties on seismic velocities and radial anisotropy. The technique employed enabled us to describe the model space with a posterior probability density function, and therefore to test whether models obtained from different crustal corrections are statistically different. We thus assessed the significance of the choice of the crustal model by comparing the posterior model errors to the differences in mantle structure resulting from different crustal corrections. We tested prior crustal models CRUST2.0, CRUST1.0, and 3SMAC. Our study shows that the use of prior crustal corrections from different crustal models yields significant discrepancies in mantle velocities around 50 km depth and in radial anisotropy down to 100 km. The impact of the crustal correction on radial anisotropy can extend down to 250 km in some locations.We found that choosing 3SMAC instead of the other crustal models has a stronger influence on the mantle model, but that CRUST1.0 and CRUST2.0 yield statistically identical anisotropy models at all depths, except at a few grid cells. Importantly, the effect of the crustal model is most significant in continental regions and not so much beneath oceans, which has important consequences for determining the depth of continental roots. Our results therefore suggest that improving constraints on crustal structure in continents is essential for our understanding of continent formation. Our work also demonstrates that the prior crustal model does not significantly affect radial anisotropy and velocities at depths greater than 100 km. This implies that if geodynamic interpretations of radial anisotropy below 100 km depth were to account for tomographic model uncertainties, they would not depend on the choice of the prior crustal model. It is therefore important for geodynamicists and seismologists to work in concert and to put effort into determining quantitative tomographic model uncertainties before interpreting the results. Our results also caution against the use of 3SMAC to correct surface wave data for studies of the continental lithosphere, and suggest that the solid Earth community would benefit from putting some efforts toward building a revised 3SMAC. The discrepancies between mantle models built based on 3SMAC crustal corrections and those based on CRUST1.0 or CRUST2.0 should also help shed light on the validity of the geodynamical assumptions made in the construction of models like 3SMAC.

© The Authors 2015. Several recent studies have demonstrated the importance of crustal corrections when inverting surface wave data tomodel lateral variations in mantle radial anisotropy. It has also been shown that the choice of the prior crustal model to correct the data can strongly influence the anisotropy model and potentially lead to different geodynamic interpretations. In comparing tomographic models of radial anisotropy obtained from different crustal corrections, these studies did not, however, determine quantitative model uncertainties. Nevertheless, mantle models resulting from different prior crustal corrections are statistically different only if the posterior model errors stemming from the non-uniqueness of the inverse problem are smaller than the effect of the crustal correction itself. Here, we applied a model space search approach to global fundamental and higher mode Rayleigh and Love wave phase velocity maps to determine reliable, quantitative model uncertainties on seismic velocities and radial anisotropy. The technique employed enabled us to describe the model space with a posterior probability density function, and therefore to test whether models obtained from different crustal corrections are statistically different. We thus assessed the significance of the choice of the crustal model by comparing the posterior model errors to the differences in mantle structure resulting from different crustal corrections. We tested prior crustal models CRUST2.0, CRUST1.0 and 3SMAC. Our study shows that the use of prior crustal corrections from different crustal models yields significant discrepancies in mantle velocities around 50 km depth and in radial anisotropy down to 100 km. The impact of the crustal correction on radial anisotropy can extend down to 250 km in some locations.We found that choosing 3SMAC instead of the other crustal models has a stronger influence on the mantle model, but that CRUST1.0 and CRUST2.0 yield statistically identical anisotropy models at all depths, except at a few grid cells. Importantly, the effect of the crustal model is most significant in continental regions and not so much beneath oceans, which has important consequences for determining the depth of continental roots. Our results therefore suggest that improving constraints on crustal structure in continents is essential for our understanding of continent formation. Our work also demonstrates that the prior crustal model does not significantly affect radial anisotropy and velocities at depths greater than 100 km. This implies that if geodynamic interpretations of radial anisotropy below 100 km depth were to account for tomographic model uncertainties, they would not depend on the choice of the prior crustal model. It is therefore important for geodynamicists and seismologists to work in concert and to put effort into determining quantitative tomographic model uncertainties before interpreting the results. Our results also caution against the use of 3SMAC to correct surface wave data for studies of the continental lithosphere and suggest that the solid Earth community would benefit from putting some efforts towards building a revised 3SMAC. The discrepancies between mantle models built based on 3SMAC crustal corrections and those based on CRUST1.0 or CRUST2.0 should also help shed light on the validity of the geodynamical assumptions made in the construction of models like 3SMAC.

The boundary between the lithosphere and asthenosphere is associated with a platewide high-seismic velocity "lid" overlying lowered velocities, consistent with thermal models. Seismic body waves also intermittently detect a sharp velocity reduction at similar depths, the Gutenberg (G) discontinuity, which cannot be explained by temperature alone. We compared an anisotropic tomography model with detections of the G to evaluate their context and relation to the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB). We find that the G is primarily associated with vertical changes in azimuthal anisotropy and lies above a thermally controlled LAB, implying that the two are not equivalent interfaces. The origin of the G is a result of frozen-in lithospheric structures, regional compositional variations of the mantle, or dynamically perturbed LAB.

The result of a search for the decay B(c)(+) → B(s)(0) π+ is presented, using the B(s)(0) → D(s)(-)π+ and B(s)(0) → J/ψ Ø channels. The analysis is based on a data sample of pp collisions collected with the LHCb detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1 fb(-1) taken at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV, and 2 fb(-1) taken at 8 TeV. The decay B(c)(+) → B(s)(0)π+ is observed with significance in excess of 5 standard deviations independently in both decay channels. The measured product of the ratio of cross sections and branching fraction is [σ(B(c)(+))/σ(B(s)(0))] × B(B(c)(+)→ B(s)(0)π+) = [2.37 ± 0.31 (stat)± 0.11 (syst)(-0.13)(+0.17)(τ(B)(c)(+)))] × 10(-3), in the pseudorapidity range 2<η(B)<5, where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic, and the third is due to the uncertainty on the B(c)(+) lifetime. This is the first observation of a B meson decaying to another B meson via the weak interaction.

The decay B(c)(+) → J/ψπ(+) π(-) π(+) is observed for the first time, using 0.8 fb(-1) of pp collisions at sqrt[s] = 7 TeV collected by the LHCb experiment. The ratio of branching fractions B(B(c)(+) → J/ψπ(+) π(-) π(+))/B(B(c)(+)→J/ψπ^{+}) is measured to be 2.41 ± 0.30 ± 0.33, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. The result is in agreement with theoretical predictions.

The relative rates of B-meson decays into J/ψ and ψ(2S) mesons are measured for the three decay modes in pp collisions recorded with the LHCb detector. The ratios of branching fractions ([Formula: see text]) are measured to be [Formula: see text] where the third uncertainty is from the ratio of the ψ(2S) and J/ψ branching fractions to μ⁺μ^-.

The differential cross-section for the inclusive production of ψ(2S) mesons in pp collisions at [Formula: see text] has been measured with the LHCb detector. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36 pb^-1. The ψ(2S) mesons are reconstructed in the decay channels ψ(2S)→μ⁺μ^- and ψ(2S)→J/ψπ⁺π^-, with the J/ψ meson decaying into two muons. Results are presented both for promptly produced ψ(2S) mesons and for those originating from b-hadron decays. In the kinematic range p_T(ψ(2S))≤16 GeV/c and 2<y(ψ(2S))≤4.5 we measure [Formula: see text] where the last uncertainty on the prompt cross-section is due to the unknown ψ(2S) polarization. Recent QCD calculations are found to be in good agreement with our measurements. Combining the present result with the LHCb J/ψ measurements we determine the inclusive branching fraction [Formula: see text] where the last uncertainty is due to the [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] branching fraction uncertainties.

The calibration and performance of the opposite-side flavour tagging algorithms used for the measurements of time-dependent asymmetries at the LHCb experiment are described. The algorithms have been developed using simulated events and optimized and calibrated with B⁺→J/ψK⁺, B⁰→J/ψK^∗0 and B⁰→D^∗-μ⁺ν_μ decay modes with 0.37 fb^-1 of data collected in pp collisions at [Formula: see text] during the 2011 physics run. The opposite-side tagging power is determined in the B⁺→J/ψK⁺ channel to be (2.10±0.08±0.24) %, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

The production of ϒ(1S), ϒ(2S) and ϒ(3S) mesons in proton-proton collisions at the centre-of-mass energy of [Formula: see text] is studied with the LHCb detector. The analysis is based on a data sample of 25 pb^-1 collected at the Large Hadron Collider. The ϒ mesons are reconstructed in the decay mode ϒ→μ⁺μ^- and the signal yields are extracted from a fit to the μ⁺μ^- invariant mass distributions. The differential production cross-sections times dimuon branching fractions are measured as a function of the ϒ transverse momentum p_T and rapidity y, over the range p_T <15 GeV/c and 2.0<y<4.5. The cross-sections times branching fractions, integrated over these kinematic ranges, are measured to be [Formula: see text] where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic and the third is due to the unknown polarisation of the three ϒ states.