More Like this

1. Measurement of the production cross section of prompt $$\Xi ^0_{\textrm{c}}$$ baryons in p–Pb collisions at $$\sqrt{s_{{\textrm{NN}}}}=5.02$$ TeV

   https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13531-w  

   Acharya, S; Adamová, D; Agarwal, A; Aglieri_Rinella, G; Aglietta, L; Agnello, M; Agrawal, N; Ahammed, Z; Ahmad, S; Ahn, S U; et al (January 2025, The European Physical Journal C)

   Abstract The transverse momentum ($$p_{\textrm{T}}$$ $p_{\text{T}}$ ) differential production cross section of the promptly produced charm-strange baryon$$\mathrm {\Xi _{c}^{0}}$$ ${\Xi }_c^0$ (and its charge conjugate$$\overline{\mathrm {\Xi _{c}^{0}}}$$ $\overline{{\Xi }_c^0}$ ) is measured at midrapidity via its hadronic decay into$$\mathrm{\pi ^{+}}\Xi ^{-}$$ ${\pi }^{+}{\Xi }^{-}$ in p–Pb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon–nucleon collision$$\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}~=~5.02$$ $\sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}}=5.02$  TeV with the ALICE detector at the LHC. The$$\mathrm {\Xi _{c}^{0}}$$ ${\Xi }_c^0$ nuclear modification factor ($$R_{\textrm{pPb}}$$ $R_{\text{pPb}}$ ), calculated from the cross sections in pp and p–Pb collisions, is presented and compared with the$$R_{\textrm{pPb}}$$ $R_{\text{pPb}}$ of$$\mathrm {\Lambda _{c}^{+}}$$ ${\Lambda }_c^{+}$ baryons. The ratios between the$$p_{\textrm{T}}$$ $p_{\text{T}}$ -differential production cross section of$$\mathrm {\Xi _{c}^{0}}$$ ${\Xi }_c^0$ baryons and those of$$\mathrm {D^0}$$ $D^0$ mesons and$$\mathrm {\Lambda _{c}^{+}}$$ ${\Lambda }_c^{+}$ baryons are also reported and compared with results at forward and backward rapidity from the LHCb Collaboration. The measurements of the production cross section of prompt$$\Xi ^0_\textrm{c}$$ ${\Xi }_{\text{c}}^0$ baryons are compared with a model based on perturbative QCD calculations of charm-quark production cross sections, which includes only cold nuclear matter effects in p–Pb collisions, and underestimates the measurement by a factor of about 50. This discrepancy is reduced when the data is compared with a model that includes string formation beyond leading-colour approximation or in which hadronisation is implemented via quark coalescence. The$$p_{\textrm{T}}$$ $p_{\text{T}}$ -integrated cross section of prompt$$\Xi ^0_\textrm{c}$$ ${\Xi }_{\text{c}}^0$ -baryon production at midrapidity extrapolated down to$$p_{\textrm{T}}$$ $p_{\text{T}}$ = 0 is also reported. These measurements offer insights and constraints for theoretical calculations of the hadronisation process. Additionally, they provide inputs for the calculation of the charm production cross section in p–Pb collisions at midrapidity. 

   more » « less
2. Observation of the $${{{\Lambda }} _{\text {b}}^{{0}}} \rightarrow {{\text {J}/\uppsi }} {{{\Xi }} ^{{-}}} {{\text {K}} ^{{+}}} $$ decay

   https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13114-9  

   Hayrapetyan, A; Tumasyan, A; Adam, W; Andrejkovic, J W; Bergauer, T; Chatterjee, S; Damanakis, K; Dragicevic, M; Valle, A_Escalante Del; Hussain, P S; et al (October 2024, The European Physical Journal C)

   Abstract Using proton–proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of$$140\hbox { fb}^{-1}$$ $140{\text{fb}}^{-1}$ collected by the CMS experiment at$$\sqrt{s}= 13\,\text {Te}\hspace{-.08em}\text {V} $$ $\sqrt{s}=13\text{Te}\text{V}$ , the$${{{\Lambda }} _{\text {b}}^{{0}}} \rightarrow {{\text {J}/\uppsi }} {{{\Xi }} ^{{-}}} {{\text {K}} ^{{+}}} $$ ${\Lambda }_{\text{b}}^0\to \text{J}/\psi {\Xi }^{-}{\text{K}}^{+}$ decay is observed for the first time, with a statistical significance exceeding 5 standard deviations. The relative branching fraction, with respect to the$${{{\Lambda }} _{\text {b}}^{{0}}} \rightarrow {{{\uppsi }} ({2\textrm{S}})} {{\Lambda }} $$ ${\Lambda }_{\text{b}}^0\to \psi \left(2\text{S}\right)\Lambda$ decay, is measured to be$$\mathcal {B}({{{\Lambda }} _{\text {b}}^{{0}}} \rightarrow {{\text {J}/\uppsi }} {{{\Xi }} ^{{-}}} {{\text {K}} ^{{+}}} )/\mathcal {B}({{{\Lambda }} _{\text {b}}^{{0}}} \rightarrow {{{\uppsi }} ({2\textrm{S}})} {{\Lambda }} ) = [3.38\pm 1.02\pm 0.61\pm 0.03]\%$$ $B({\Lambda }_{\text{b}}^0\to \text{J}/\psi {\Xi }^{-}{\text{K}}^{+})/B({\Lambda }_{\text{b}}^0\to \psi \left(2\text{S}\right)\Lambda )=[3.38\pm 1.02\pm 0.61\pm 0.03]\%$ , where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic, and the third is related to the uncertainties in$$\mathcal {B}({{{\uppsi }} ({2\textrm{S}})} \rightarrow {{\text {J}/\uppsi }} {{{\uppi }} ^{{+}}} {{{\uppi }} ^{{-}}} )$$ $B(\psi \left(2\text{S}\right)\to \text{J}/\psi {\pi }^{+}{\pi }^{-})$ and$$\mathcal {B}({{{\Xi }} ^{{-}}} \rightarrow {{\Lambda }} {{{\uppi }} ^{{-}}} )$$ $B({\Xi }^{-}\to \Lambda {\pi }^{-})$ . 

   more » « less
3. On a Traveling Salesman Problem for Points in the Unit Cube

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-024-01257-w  

   Balogh, József; Clemen, Felix Christian; Dumitrescu, Adrian (September 2024, Algorithmica)

   Abstract LetXbe ann-element point set in thek-dimensional unit cube$$[0,1]^k$$ ${[0,1]}^k$ where$$k \ge 2$$ $k\ge 2$ . According to an old result of Bollobás and Meir (Oper Res Lett 11:19–21, 1992) , there exists a cycle (tour)$$x_1, x_2, \ldots , x_n$$ $x_1,x_2,\dots ,x_n$ through thenpoints, such that$$\left( \sum _{i=1}^n |x_i - x_{i+1}|^k \right) ^{1/k} \le c_k$$ ${\left({\sum }_{i=1}^n,{|x_i-x_{i+1}|}^k\right)}^{1/k}\le c_k$ , where$$|x-y|$$ $|x-y|$ is the Euclidean distance betweenxandy, and$$c_k$$ $c_k$ is an absolute constant that depends only onk, where$$x_{n+1} \equiv x_1$$ $x_{n+1}\equiv x_1$ . From the other direction, for every$$k \ge 2$$ $k\ge 2$ and$$n \ge 2$$ $n\ge 2$ , there existnpoints in$$[0,1]^k$$ ${[0,1]}^k$ , such that their shortest tour satisfies$$\left( \sum _{i=1}^n |x_i - x_{i+1}|^k \right) ^{1/k} = 2^{1/k} \cdot \sqrt{k}$$ ${\left({\sum }_{i=1}^n,{|x_i-x_{i+1}|}^k\right)}^{1/k}=2^{1/k}·\sqrt{k}$ . For the plane, the best constant is$$c_2=2$$ $c_2=2$ and this is the only exact value known. Bollobás and Meir showed that one can take$$c_k = 9 \left( \frac{2}{3} \right) ^{1/k} \cdot \sqrt{k}$$ $c_k=9{\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)}^{1/k}·\sqrt{k}$ for every$$k \ge 3$$ $k\ge 3$ and conjectured that the best constant is$$c_k = 2^{1/k} \cdot \sqrt{k}$$ $c_k=2^{1/k}·\sqrt{k}$ , for every$$k \ge 2$$ $k\ge 2$ . Here we significantly improve the upper bound and show that one can take$$c_k = 3 \sqrt{5} \left( \frac{2}{3} \right) ^{1/k} \cdot \sqrt{k}$$ $c_k=3\sqrt{5}{\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)}^{1/k}·\sqrt{k}$ or$$c_k = 2.91 \sqrt{k} \ (1+o_k(1))$$ $c_k=2.91\sqrt{k}(1+o_k\left(1\right))$ . Our bounds are constructive. We also show that$$c_3 \ge 2^{7/6}$$ $c_3\ge 2^{7/6}$ , which disproves the conjecture for$$k=3$$ $k=3$ . Connections to matching problems, power assignment problems, related problems, including algorithms, are discussed in this context. A slightly revised version of the Bollobás–Meir conjecture is proposed. 

   more » « less
4. Photo-response of the $$N=Z$$ nucleus $$^{24}$$Mg

   https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01111-7  

   Deary, J; Scheck, M; Schwengner, R; O’Donnell, D; Bemmerer, D; Beyer, R; Hensel, Th; Junghans, A R; Kögler, T; Müller, S E; et al (September 2023, The European Physical Journal A)

   Abstract The electricE1 and magneticM1 dipole responses of the$$N=Z$$ $N=Z$ nucleus$$^{24}$$ ${}^{24}$ Mg were investigated in an inelastic photon scattering experiment. The 13.0 MeV electrons, which were used to produce the unpolarised bremsstrahlung in the entrance channel of the$$^{24}$$ ${}^{24}$ Mg($$\gamma ,\gamma ^{\prime }$$ $\gamma ,{\gamma }^{\prime }$ ) reaction, were delivered by the ELBE accelerator of the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf. The collimated bremsstrahlung photons excited one$$J^{\pi }=1^-$$ $J^{\pi }=1^{-}$ , four$$J^{\pi }=1^+$$ $J^{\pi }=1^{+}$ , and six$$J^{\pi }=2^+$$ $J^{\pi }=2^{+}$ states in$$^{24}$$ ${}^{24}$ Mg. De-excitation$$\gamma $$ $\gamma$ rays were detected using the four high-purity germanium detectors of the$$\gamma $$ $\gamma$ ELBE setup, which is dedicated to nuclear resonance fluorescence experiments. In the energy region up to 13.0 MeV a total$$B(M1)\uparrow = 2.7(3)~\mu _N^2$$ $B\left(M1\right)\uparrow =2.7\left(3\right){\mu }_N^2$ is observed, but this$$N=Z$$ $N=Z$ nucleus exhibits only marginalE1 strength of less than$$\sum B(E1)\uparrow \le 0.61 \times 10^{-3}$$ $\sum B\left(E1\right)\uparrow \le 0.61\times {10}^{-3}$  e$$^2 \, $$ ${}^2$ fm$$^2$$ ${}^2$ . The$$B(\varPi 1, 1^{\pi }_i \rightarrow 2^+_1)/B(\varPi 1, 1^{\pi }_i \rightarrow 0^+_{gs})$$ $B(\Pi 1,1_i^{\pi }\to 2_1^{+})/B(\Pi 1,1_i^{\pi }\to 0_{\mathrm{gs}}^{+})$ branching ratios in combination with the expected results from the Alaga rules demonstrate thatKis a good approximative quantum number for$$^{24}$$ ${}^{24}$ Mg. The use of the known$$\rho ^2(E0, 0^+_2 \rightarrow 0^+_{gs})$$ ${\rho }^2(E0,0_2^{+}\to 0_{\mathrm{gs}}^{+})$ strength and the measured$$B(M1, 1^+ \rightarrow 0^+_2)/B(M1, 1^+ \rightarrow 0^+_{gs})$$ $B(M1,1^{+}\to 0_2^{+})/B(M1,1^{+}\to 0_{\mathrm{gs}}^{+})$ branching ratio of the 10.712 MeV$$1^+$$ $1^{+}$ level allows, in a two-state mixing model, an extraction of the difference$$\varDelta \beta _2^2$$ $\Delta {\beta }_2^2$ between the prolate ground-state structure and shape-coexisting superdeformed structure built upon the 6432-keV$$0^+_2$$ $0_2^{+}$ level. 

   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