More on heavy tetraquarks in lattice QCD at almost physical pion mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on our progress in studying exotic, heavy tetraquark states, qq′ Q̅Q̅′. Using publicly available dynamicalnf= 2 + 1 Wilson-Clover gauge configurations, generated by the PACS-CS collaboration, with pion masses ≃ 164, 299 and 415 MeV, we extend our previous analysis to heavy quark components containing heavier than physical bottom quarks Q̅Q̅′ =b̅′b̅′or Q̅Q̅′ =b̅b̅′, charm and bottom quarksc̅b̅and also only charm quarks c̅ c̅. Throughout we employ NRQCD and relativistic heavy quarks for the heavier than bottom, bottom and charm quarks. Using our previously established diquark-antidiquark and meson-meson operator basis we comment in particular on the dependence of the binding energy on the mass of the heavy quark componentQ̅Q̅, with heavy quarks ranging frommQ= 0:85… 6.3 ·mb. In the heavy flavor non-degenerate case,Q̅Q̅′, and especially for the tetraquark channeludc̅d̅, we extend our work to utilize a 3 × 3 GEVP to study the ground and threshold states thereby enabling a clear identification of possible binding. Finally, we present initial work on theQ̅Q̅′=c̅c̅system where a much larger operator basis is available in comparison to flavor combinations with NRQCD quarks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".