MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards Exotic Hidden-Charm Pentaquarks in QCD

2015· article· en· W2121647640 on OpenAlexafffund
Hua-Xing Chen, Wei Chen, Xiang Liu, T. G. Steele, Shi-Lin Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSpecialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of ChinaChangjiang Scholar Program of Chinese Ministry of EducationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCharm (quantum number)Particle physicsQuantum chromodynamicsPhysicsExotic hadronNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by ${P}_{c}(4380)$ and ${P}_{c}(4450)$ recently observed by LHCb, a QCD sum rule investigation is performed, by which they can be identified as exotic hidden-charm pentaquarks composed of an anticharmed meson and a charmed baryon. Our results suggest that ${P}_{c}(4380)$ and ${P}_{c}(4450)$ have quantum numbers ${J}^{P}=3/{2}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ and $5/{2}^{+}$, respectively. Furthermore, two extra hidden-charm pentaqurks with configurations $\overline{D}{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Sigma}}}_{c}^{*}$ and ${\overline{D}}^{*}{\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Sigma}}}_{c}^{*}$ are predicted, which have spin-parity quantum numbers ${J}^{P}=3/{2}^{\ensuremath{-}}$ and ${J}^{P}=5/{2}^{+}$, respectively. As an important extension, the mass predictions of hidden-bottom pentaquarks are also given. Searches for these partners of ${P}_{c}(4380)$ and ${P}_{c}(4450)$ are especially accessible at future experiments like LHCb and BelleII.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations270
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle InteractionsFrench-language works237,207