More Like this

1. Evidence of a liquid–liquid phase transition in H$$_2$$O and D$$_2$$O from path-integral molecular dynamics simulations

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09525-x  

   Eltareb, Ali; Lopez, Gustavo E.; Giovambattista, Nicolas (April 2022, Scientific Reports)

   Abstract We perform path-integral molecular dynamics (PIMD), ring-polymer MD (RPMD), and classical MD simulations of H$$_2$$ ${}_2$O and D$$_2$$ ${}_2$O using the q-TIP4P/F water model over a wide range of temperatures and pressures. The density$$\rho (T)$$ $\rho \left(T\right)$, isothermal compressibility$$\kappa _T(T)$$ ${\kappa }_T\left(T\right)$, and self-diffusion coefficientsD(T) of H$$_2$$ ${}_2$O and D$$_2$$ ${}_2$O are in excellent agreement with available experimental data; the isobaric heat capacity$$C_P(T)$$ $C_P\left(T\right)$obtained from PIMD and MD simulations agree qualitatively well with the experiments. Some of these thermodynamic properties exhibit anomalous maxima upon isobaric cooling, consistent with recent experiments and with the possibility that H$$_2$$ ${}_2$O and D$$_2$$ ${}_2$O exhibit a liquid-liquid critical point (LLCP) at low temperatures and positive pressures. The data from PIMD/MD for H$$_2$$ ${}_2$O and D$$_2$$ ${}_2$O can be fitted remarkably well using the Two-State-Equation-of-State (TSEOS). Using the TSEOS, we estimate that the LLCP for q-TIP4P/F H$$_2$$ ${}_2$O, from PIMD simulations, is located at$$P_c = 167 \pm 9$$ $P_c=167\pm 9$ MPa,$$T_c = 159 \pm 6$$ $T_c=159\pm 6$ K, and$$\rho _c = 1.02 \pm 0.01$$ ${\rho }_c=1.02\pm 0.01$ g/cm$$^3$$ ${}^3$. Isotope substitution effects are important; the LLCP location in q-TIP4P/F D$$_2$$ ${}_2$O is estimated to be$$P_c = 176 \pm 4$$ $P_c=176\pm 4$ MPa,$$T_c = 177 \pm 2$$ $T_c=177\pm 2$ K, and$$\rho _c = 1.13 \pm 0.01$$ ${\rho }_c=1.13\pm 0.01$ g/cm$$^3$$ ${}^3$. Interestingly, for the water model studied, differences in the LLCP location from PIMD and MD simulations suggest that nuclear quantum effects (i.e., atoms delocalization) play an important role in the thermodynamics of water around the LLCP (from the MD simulations of q-TIP4P/F water,$$P_c = 203 \pm 4$$ $P_c=203\pm 4$ MPa,$$T_c = 175 \pm 2$$ $T_c=175\pm 2$ K, and$$\rho _c = 1.03 \pm 0.01$$ ${\rho }_c=1.03\pm 0.01$ g/cm$$^3$$ ${}^3$). Overall, our results strongly support the LLPT scenario to explain water anomalous behavior, independently of the fundamental differences between classical MD and PIMD techniques. The reported values of$$T_c$$ $T_c$for D$$_2$$ ${}_2$O and, particularly, H$$_2$$ ${}_2$O suggest that improved water models are needed for the study of supercooled water. 

   more » « less
2. Measurements of the branching fractions of $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0 $$, $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0\eta $$, and $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\eta}^{\prime } $$ and asymmetry parameter of $$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0 $$

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2024)045  

   Adachi, I; Aggarwal, L; Aihara, H; Akopov, N; Aloisio, A; Althubiti, N; Anh_Ky, N; Asner, D M; Atmacan, H; Aushev, T; et al (October 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> We present a study of$$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0\eta $$ ${\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0\eta$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\eta}^{\prime } $$ ${\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\eta }^{\prime }$decays using the Belle and Belle II data samples, which have integrated luminosities of 980 fb⁻¹and 426 fb⁻¹, respectively. We measure the following relative branching fractions$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0\right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.48\pm 0.02\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.03\left(\textrm{syst}\right),\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0\eta \right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.11\pm 0.01\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.01\left(\textrm{syst}\right),\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\eta}^{\prime}\right)/\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right)=0.08\pm 0.02\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.01\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0\right)/B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)=0.48\pm 0.02\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.03\left(\text{syst}\right),\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0\eta \right)/B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)=0.11\pm 0.01\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.01\left(\text{syst}\right),\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\eta }^{\prime }\right)/B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)=0.08\pm 0.02\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.01\left(\text{syst}\right)\end{array}$ for the first time, where the uncertainties are statistical (stat) and systematic (syst). By multiplying by the branching fraction of the normalization mode,$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)$, we obtain the following absolute branching fraction results$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0\right)=\left(6.9\pm 0.3\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.5\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\pm 1.3\left(\operatorname{norm}\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0\eta \right)=\left(1.6\pm 0.2\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.2\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\pm 0.3\left(\operatorname{norm}\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\varXi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\eta}^{\prime}\right)=\left(1.2\pm 0.3\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.1\left(\textrm{syst}\right)\pm 0.2\left(\operatorname{norm}\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0\right)=\left(6.9\pm 0.3\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.5\left(\text{syst}\right)\pm 1.3\left(norm\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0\eta \right)=\left(1.6\pm 0.2\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.2\left(\text{syst}\right)\pm 0.3\left(norm\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\eta }^{\prime }\right)=\left(1.2\pm 0.3\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.1\left(\text{syst}\right)\pm 0.2\left(norm\right)\right)\times {10}^{-3},\end{array}$ where the third uncertainties are from$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}\right)$. The asymmetry parameter for$$ {\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0$is measured to be$$ \alpha \left({\Xi}_c^0\to {\Xi}^0{\pi}^0\right)=-0.90\pm 0.15\left(\textrm{stat}\right)\pm 0.23\left(\textrm{syst}\right) $$ $\alpha \left({\Xi }_c^0\to {\Xi }^0{\pi }^0\right)=-0.90\pm 0.15\left(\text{stat}\right)\pm 0.23\left(\text{syst}\right)$. 

   more » « less
3. A case study of SMEFT $$ \mathcal{O}\left(1/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ effects in diboson processes: pp → W±(ℓ±ν)γ

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)223  

   Martin, Adam (May 2024, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> In this paper we explorepp→W^±(ℓ^±ν)γto$$ \mathcal{O}\left(1/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ $O\left(1/{\Lambda }^4\right)$in the SMEFT expansion. Calculations to this order are necessary to properly capture SMEFT contributions that grow with energy, as the interference between energy-enhanced SMEFT effects at$$ \mathcal{O}\left(1/{\Lambda}^2\right) $$ $O\left(1/{\Lambda }^2\right)$and the Standard Model is suppressed. We find that there are several dimension eight operators that interfere with the Standard Model and lead to the same energy growth, ~$$ \mathcal{O}\left({E}^4/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ $O\left(E^4/{\Lambda }^4\right)$, as dimension six squared. While energy-enhanced SMEFT contributions are a main focus, our calculation includes the complete set of$$ \mathcal{O}\left(1/{\Lambda}^4\right) $$ $O\left(1/{\Lambda }^4\right)$SMEFT effects consistent with U(3)⁵flavor symmetry. Additionally, we include the decay of theW^±→ ℓ^±ν, making the calculation actually$$ \overline{q}{q}^{\prime}\to {\ell}^{\pm}\nu \gamma $$ $\overline{q}{q}^{\prime }\to {\ell }^{\pm }\mathrm{\nu \gamma }$. As such, we are able to study the impact of non-resonant SMEFT operators, such as$$ \left({L}^{\dagger }{\overline{\sigma}}^{\mu }{\tau}^IL\right)\left({Q}^{\dagger }{\overline{\sigma}}^{\nu }{\tau}^IQ\right) $$ $\left(L^{†}{\overline{\sigma }}^{\mu }{\tau }^{I}L\right)\left(Q^{†}{\overline{\sigma }}^{\nu }{\tau }^{I}Q\right)$B_μν, which contribute to$$ \overline{q}{q}^{\prime}\to {\ell}^{\pm}\nu \gamma $$ $\overline{q}{q}^{\prime }\to {\ell }^{\pm }\mathrm{\nu \gamma }$directly and not to$$ \overline{q}{q}^{\prime}\to {W}^{\pm}\gamma $$ $\overline{q}{q}^{\prime }\to W^{\pm }\gamma$. We show several distributions to illustrate the shape differences of the different contributions. 

   more » « less
4. Charm fragmentation fractions and $$\mathbf {c\overline{c}}$$ cross section in p–Pb collisions at $$\mathbf {\sqrt{s _{NN}}=5.02 TeV}$$

   https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13394-1  

   Acharya, S; Adamová, D; Agarwal, A; Aglieri_Rinella, G; Aglietta, L; Agnello, M; Agrawal, N; Ahammed, Z; Ahmad, S; Ahn, S U; et al (December 2024, The European Physical Journal C)

   Abstract The total charm-quark production cross section per unit of rapidity$$\textrm{d}\sigma ({{\textrm{c}}\overline{\textrm{c}}})/\textrm{d}y$$ $\text{d}\sigma \left(\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}\right)/\text{d}y$, and the fragmentation fractions of charm quarks to different charm-hadron species$$f(\textrm{c}\rightarrow {\textrm{h}}_{\textrm{c}})$$ $f(\text{c}\to {\text{h}}_{\text{c}})$, are measured for the first time in p–Pb collisions at$$\sqrt{s_\textrm{NN}} = 5.02~\text {Te}\hspace{-1.00006pt}\textrm{V} $$ $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=5.02\text{Te}\text{V}$at midrapidity ($$-0.96<0.04$$ $-0.96<y<0.04$in the centre-of-mass frame) using data collected by ALICE at the CERN LHC. The results are obtained based on all the available measurements of prompt production of ground-state charm-hadron species:$$\textrm{D}^{0}$$ ${\text{D}}^0$,$$\textrm{D}^{+}$$ ${\text{D}}^{+}$,$$\textrm{D}_\textrm{s}^{+}$$ ${\text{D}}_{\text{s}}^{+}$, and$$\mathrm {J/\psi }$$ $J/\psi$mesons, and$$\Lambda _\textrm{c}^{+}$$ ${\Lambda }_{\text{c}}^{+}$and$$\Xi _\textrm{c}^{0}$$ ${\Xi }_{\text{c}}^0$baryons. The resulting cross section is$$ \textrm{d}\sigma ({{\textrm{c}}\overline{\textrm{c}}})/\textrm{d}y =219.6 \pm 6.3\;(\mathrm {stat.}) {\;}_{-11.8}^{+10.5}\;(\mathrm {syst.}) {\;}_{-2.9}^{+8.3}\;(\mathrm {extr.})\pm 5.4\;(\textrm{BR})\pm 4.6\;(\mathrm {lumi.}) \pm 19.5\;(\text {rapidity shape})+15.0\;(\Omega _\textrm{c}^{0})\;\textrm{mb} $$ $\text{d}\sigma \left(\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}\right)/\text{d}y=219.6\pm 6.3\left(\mathrm{stat}.\right)_{-11.8}^{+10.5}\left(\mathrm{syst}.\right)_{-2.9}^{+8.3}\left(\mathrm{extr}.\right)\pm 5.4\left(\text{BR}\right)\pm 4.6\left(\mathrm{lumi}.\right)\pm 19.5\left(\text{rapidity shape}\right)+15.0\left({\Omega }_{\text{c}}^0\right)\text{mb}$, which is consistent with a binary scaling of pQCD calculations from pp collisions. The measured fragmentation fractions are compatible with those measured in pp collisions at$$\sqrt{s} = 5.02$$ $\sqrt{s}=5.02$and 13 TeV, showing an increase in the relative production rates of charm baryons with respect to charm mesons in pp and p–Pb collisions compared with$$\mathrm {e^{+}e^{-}}$$ $e^{+}{e}^{-}$and$$\mathrm {e^{-}p}$$ $e^{-}p$collisions. The$$p_\textrm{T}$$ $p_{\text{T}}$-integrated nuclear modification factor of charm quarks,$$R_\textrm{pPb}({\textrm{c}}\overline{\textrm{c}})= 0.91 \pm 0.04\;\mathrm{(stat.)} ^{+0.08}_{-0.09}\;\mathrm{(syst.)} ^{+0.05}_{-0.03}\;\mathrm{(extr.)} \pm 0.03\;\mathrm{(lumi.)}$$ $R_{\text{pPb}}\left(\text{c}\overline{\text{c}}\right)=0.91\pm 0.04{(\mathrm{stat}.)}_{-0.09}^{+0.08}{(\mathrm{syst}.)}_{-0.03}^{+0.05}(\mathrm{extr}.)\pm 0.03(\mathrm{lumi}.)$, is found to be consistent with unity and with theoretical predictions including nuclear modifications of the parton distribution functions. 

   more » « less
5. Observations of the singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays $$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$, $$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$, and $$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ at Belle and Belle II

   https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2025)061  

   Adachi, I; Aggarwal, L; Akopov, N; Alhakami, M; Aloisio, A; Althubiti, N; Anh_Ky, N; Asner, D M; Atmacan, H; Aushev, T; et al (March 2025, Journal of High Energy Physics)

   A<sc>bstract</sc> Using data samples of 983.0 fb⁻¹and 427.9 fb⁻¹accumulated with the Belle and Belle II detectors operating at the KEKB and SuperKEKB asymmetric-energye⁺e⁻colliders, singly Cabibbo-suppressed decays$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}$are observed for the first time. The ratios of branching fractions of$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0 $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0$,$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}$, and$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}$relative to that of$$ {\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+} $$ ${\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}$are measured to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(2.47\pm 0.16\pm 0.07\right)\%,\\ {}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+}\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(1.56\pm 0.14\pm 0.09\right)\%,\\ {}\frac{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+}\right)}{\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)}=\left(4.13\pm 0.26\pm 0.22\right)\%.\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}\frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(2.47\pm 0.16\pm 0.07\right)\%,\\ \frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(1.56\pm 0.14\pm 0.09\right)\%,\\ \frac{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}\right)}{B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)}=\left(4.13\pm 0.26\pm 0.22\right)\%.\end{array}$ Multiplying these values by the branching fraction of the normalization channel,$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(2.9\pm 1.3\right)\% $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(2.9\pm 1.3\right)\%$, the absolute branching fractions are determined to be$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{c}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)=\left(7.16\pm 0.46\pm 0.20\pm 3.21\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(4.52\pm 0.41\pm 0.26\pm 2.03\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ {}\mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Sigma}^0{\pi}^{+}\right)=\left(1.20\pm 0.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.54\right)\times {10}^{-3}.\end{array}} $$ $\begin{array}{c}B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to p{K}_S^0\right)=\left(7.16\pm 0.46\pm 0.20\pm 3.21\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(4.52\pm 0.41\pm 0.26\pm 2.03\right)\times {10}^{-4},\\ B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Sigma }^0{\pi }^{+}\right)=\left(1.20\pm 0.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.54\right)\times {10}^{-3}.\end{array}$ The first and second uncertainties above are statistical and systematic, respectively, while the third ones arise from the uncertainty in$$ \mathcal{B}\left({\Xi}_c^{+}\to {\Xi}^{-}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{+}\right) $$ $B\left({\Xi }_c^{+}\to {\Xi }^{-}{\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{+}\right)$. 

   more » « less