Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js

Lattice QCD study of ΛcΛc scattering

  • We present the first lattice result of the near threshold ΛcΛc scattering with I(JP)=0(0+). The calculation is performed on two Nf=2+1 Wilson-Clover ensembles with pion mass mπ303 MeV and lattice spacing a=0.07746 fm. Lüscher's finite volume method is utilized to extract the scattering parameters from the finite-volume spectrum. The coupled channel ΞccN is ignored in the scattering analysis based on the observation that the energy levels computed from the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators do not mix. The ΣcΣc channel is not included either since the energy range explored in this study is well below its threshold. Our results indicate that the interaction in the ΛcΛc single channel is repulsive, and the scattering length is determined to be a0=0.21(4)(8) fm, where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic.
  • The study of hadron-hadron interactions is an essential part of understanding the strong interactions and its underlying theory — quantum chromodynamics(QCD). Among them, dibaryon systems have rich dynamics in nature. The only known dibaryon bound state is the deuteron. A possible SU(3) flavor-singlet bound state, the H-dibaryon composed of two Λ baryons, was proposed a long time ago [1], but has not been observed in experiments yet. Compared to meson-meson scattering, lattice QCD study of baryon-baryon scattering is more challenging mainly due to the poor signal and complexity in the contractions of dibaryon correlation functions. The lattice results on nucleon-nucleon scattering and the binding nature of the deuteron are still controversial to date [28]. Concerning the H-dibaryon, most lattice studies found attractive interactions between two Λ baryons, but consensus on whether they can form a bound state and the magnitude of the binding energy remain elusive [914]. The bound states of two heavy baryons have also been predicted in theoretical studies [1524]. However, experimental data on the interactions of two heavy baryons are scarce due to the difficulty in producing them in experiments. On the lattice side, there are few studies on the scattering of two heavy baryons [25, 26], where the bound states of ΩcccΩccc and ΩbbbΩbbb were predicted, respectively. The ground state energy spectra of various heavy dibaryons were also investigated in lattice QCD [2729]. In this study, we focus on the scattering of two Λc baryons, analogous to the H-dibaryon, but with the strange quarks replaced by charm quarks.

    ΛcΛc scattering has been investigated in many theoretical studies, but the results are inconclusive. In studies such as Refs. [16, 23, 24], a bound state was identified in the single channel ΛcΛc scattering. Conversely, the results in Refs. [15, 17, 21, 30] do not support the existence of such a bound state. Other works suggest that ΛcΛc cannot form a bound state in a single channel, but coupling to ΣcΣc may lead to the formation of a bound state below the ΛcΛc threshold [1820, 22]. As a first-principle method, lattice QCD calculation of ΛcΛc scattering may provide crucial information for other theoretical studies.

    This work presents the lattice QCD calculation of ΛcΛc scattering based on the 2+1 flavor gauge ensembles with pion mass mπ303 MeV and lattice spacing a=0.07746 fm. Lüscher's finite volume method [3133] is employed to extract scattering information from the finite-volume spectrum. The scattering length and effective range of ΛcΛc scattering are obtained, and the results indicate repulsive interaction. The coupling with NΞcc and ΣcΣc is also discussed.

    This paper is organized as follows. The details of the gauge ensembles and computational methods are introduced in Sec. II. In Sec. III, we present the single particle spectrum and two-particle finite-volume spectrum. The scattering analysis and results are presented in Sec. IV, followed by a summary in Sec. V.

    The results presented in this paper are based on the gauge configurations generated by the CLQCD collaboration with 2+1 dynamical quark flavors using the tadpole improved tree level Symanzik gauge action and Clover fermion action [34]. Numerous studies have been performed on these configurations, see e.g. [3542]. In this work, we use two ensembles with the same pion mass mπ303 MeV and lattice spacing a=0.07746 fm, but with different volumes. The parameters of the two ensembles are listed in Table 1. The valence charm quark mass is tuned to reproduce the physical spin-averaged mass of ηc and J/Ψ, i.e. 14Mηc+34MJ/Ψ. The value of mπL is 3.81 and 5.72 for the two ensembles respectively. We expect that the volume corrections to the hadron energies, which are typically suppressed as emπL, should not have noticeable impact on our final results.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Parameters of the ensembles. The listed parameters are the coupling β, lattice spacing a, volume (L/a)3×T/a, the bare quark masses for the light (aml) and strange (ams) quarks, the pion/Kaon mass mπ/K and the number of configurations Nconf.
    Ensemble β a/fm (L/a)3×T/a aml ams mπ/MeV mK/MeV Nconf
    F32P30 6.41 0.07746(18) 323×96 -0.2295 -0.2050 303.2(1.3) 524.6(1.8) 567
    F48P30 6.41 0.07746(18) 483×96 -0.2295 -0.2050 303.4(0.9) 523.6(1.4) 201
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    The distillation quark smearing method [43] is used to compute the quark propagators. The smearing operator is composed of a small number (Nev) of the eigenvectors associated with the Nev lowest eigenvalues of the three-dimensional Laplacian defined in terms of the HYP-smeared gauge field. The number of eigenvectors Nev is 100 for the ensemble F32P30 and 200 for the ensemble F48P30.

    We are interested in ΛcΛc scattering with I(JP)=0(0+). The coupled channels ΞccN and ΣcΣc were also investigated. In this section, we present the spectrum of the relevant single particles, i.e., Λc, Ξcc, N and Σc. Then we discuss the finite-volume spectrum of the two-particle systems, which was used to extract the scattering parameters through Lüscher's method.

    The interpolating operators of Λc, Ξcc, N and Σc can be expressed as

    Λc,α=ϵijk(uiTCγ5dj)ckα,

    (1)

    Ξ++cc,α=ϵijk(uiTCγ5cj)ckα,Ξ+cc,α=ϵijk(diTCγ5cj)ckα,

    (2)

    pα=ϵijk(uiTCγ5dj)ukα,nα=ϵijk(uiTCγ5dj)dkα,

    (3)

    Σ++c,α=ϵijk(uiTCγ5cj)ukα,Σ+c,α=12ϵijk[(uiTCγ5cj)dkα+(diTCγ5cj)ukα],Σ0c,α=ϵijk(diTCγ5cj)dkα,

    (4)

    where u,d,c represent the quark fields, i,j,k are color indices and α={1,2,3,4} is the Dirac four-spinor index in the Dirac basis. These single-particle operators are the building blocks of the two-baryon operators.

    The masses of the baryons are then obtained from the correlation functions of the above interpolating operators

    C(p,t)=tsrc0|Oα(p,t+tsrc)P+αβOβ(p,tsrc)|0,

    (5)

    where P+=12(1+γ4) is the positive parity projection operator, the source-time tsrc is summed over all time slices to increase the statistics, O(p,t) is the momentum projected operator defined as O(p,t)=xeipxO(x,t). The dispersion relation E2=m20+c2p2 is investigated by calculating the single-particle energy at the five lowest momenta on the lattice: p= (0,0,0), (0,0,1), (0,1,1), (1,1,1), (0,0,2) in units of 2π/L. The effective mass of Λc at the five momenta for the ensemble F32P30 is shown in the left panel of Fig. 1. We fit the correlation functions to an exponential form C(t)=AeEt to obtain the energies. The range for fitting, denoted as [tmin,tmax] is selected as follows: tmax is set to a sufficiently large value where the error becomes significant. We then adjust the tmin until the fitted mass stabilizes, indicating that the fitting is reliable. The χ2/d.o.f is generally around 1. In the middle panel of Fig. 1, we display the fitted mass at different tmin, along with the corresponding χ2/d.o.f for fitting the zero momentum Λc correlation function. The chosen tmin is highlighted by the dark red point in the lower panel. For each baryon, we fit the five energies at the five momenta to the dispersion relation to get the parameters m0 and c. The results are collected in Table 2. The values of c for Λc, Σc and Ξcc tend to deviate from 1, primarily due to lattice artifacts stemming from the charm quark. The effects of these lattice artifacts are discussed in greater detail later on. In the right panel of Fig. 1, we display the fitting of the dispersion relation for Λc.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Left: the effective mass of Λc at the five momenta. The fitted mass and fitting range are indicated by the horizontal band. Middle: The fitted mass of the zero momentum Λc at different tmin. The corresponding values of χ2/d.o.f of the fits are also shown in the lower part of the plot, where the chosen tmin is highlighted by the red point. Right: The fit of the dispersion relation for Λc. All of the three plots are for the ensemble F32P30.

    Table 2

    Table 2.  Fit results of the dispersion relation for Λc, Σc, Ξcc and N.
    ΛcΣcΞccN
    m0/GeVcm0/GeVcm0/GeVcm0/GeVc
    F32P302.413(3)0.991(8)2.572(3)1.01(1)3.747(1)0.948(5)1.070(4)1.01(1)
    F48P302.410(1)0.988(7)2.566(1)1.01(1)3.7504(7)0.931(8)1.062(2)1.005(8)
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    We focus on the S-wave scattering in the I(JP)=0(0+) channel. Therefore we construct the dibaryon operators in the A+1 irreducible representation(irrep) of the octahedral group (Oh), which is the rotational symmetry group on lattice. The operators for ΛcΛc, ΞccN and ΣcΣc are:

    OΛcΛc(|p|,t)=α,β,pcα,β,pΛc,α(p,t)Λc,β(p,t),

    (6)

    OΞccN(|p|,t))=α,β,pcα,β,p(Ξ++cc,α(p,t)nβ(p,t)Ξ+cc,α(p,t)pβ(p,t)),

    (7)

    OΣcΣc(|p|,t))=α,β,pcα,β,p(Σ++c,α(p,t)Σ0c,β(p,t)Σ+c,α(p,t)Σ+c,β(p,t)+Σ0c,α(p,t)Σ++c,β(p,t)),

    (8)

    where the coefficients cα,β,p are chosen such that the operators transform in the A+1 irrep. To be specific, for a given |p|, the non-zero coefficients are c1,2,p=1 and c2,1,p=1 for all p. We only used the operators with zero total momentum.

    The spectra of the dibaryon systems in finite volume are determined from the matrix of correlation functions of the operators:

    Cij(t)=tsrc0|Oi(t+tsrc)Oj(tsrc)|0.

    (9)

    Solving the generalized eigenvalue problem(GEVP)

    C(t)vn(t)=λn(t)C(t0)vn(t),

    (10)

    the energies can be extracted from the time dependence of the eigenvalues λn(t). We set t0=4 and fit the eigenvalues to a two-exponential form λn(t)=AneEn(tt0)+(1An)eEn(tt0) to obtain the n-th energy level En. The overlap factor between the n-th GEVP eigenstate and i-th operator can be evaluated as n|Oi|0=2mnvnjCji(t0) [44].

    In order to investigate the coupling between ΛcΛc and ΞccN, we compute the matrix of the correlation functions of the four operators: OΛcΛc(p2=0,1) and OΞccN(p2=0,1)). We found negligible coupling between the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators. In Fig. 2(a), we compare the energy levels obtained from the GEVP analysis using the four operators (right panel) and those obtained using only the two ΛcΛc operators (left panel). In the right panel, the black and blue points present the energy levels predominantly overlap with the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators, respectively. The overlaps of the operators onto the eigenstates are shown in Fig. 2(b) for the ensemble F32P30. The overlaps for the ensemble F48P30 exhibit a similar pattern. These overlaps are calculated at time slice t=14, which is the region where the fit windows are typically situated. It is evident that the two energy levels primarily associated with the ΛcΛc operators are almost identical to the energies obtained using only the ΛcΛc operators. Therefore, in this study we did not consider the coupling effects from the ΞccN channel.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) (a) Comparison of the energies using both ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators (right), and using only ΛcΛc operators (left) for the ensembles F32P30 and F48P30. The red and blue lines represent non-interacting ΛcΛc and ΞccN channel threshold, respectively. In the right panel, the black and blue points represent the energy levels predominantly overlap with the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators, respectively. (b) The overlaps of the operators onto the eigenstates from the GEVP analysis using the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators for the ensemble F32P30. The red and blue bars represent the operators ΛcΛc and ΞccN respectively. n=0,1,2,3 are the eigenstates with energy from low to high.

    ΣcΣc can also couple to ΛcΛc. Its threshold is considerably higher than ΛcΛc. As shown later, the energy range in which we perform scattering analysis lies well below the ΣcΣc threshold. However, we still checked the effects of the ΣcΣc channel by computing the correlation function matrix of the five operators: OΛcΛc(p2=0,1,2,3) and OΣcΣc(p2=0) for the ensemble F32P30. In Fig. 3, we compare the energy levels from the GEVP analysis with and without ΣcΣc operator. The lowest three energies, which predominantly couple to the operators OΛcΛc(p2=0,1,2), exhibit close agreement between the two cases. The energy level close to the ΛcΛc(p2=3) free energy is shifted slightly upon the inclusion of the ΣcΣc operator. For the subsequent scattering analysis, we cut the energy at around aE=1.98. In this range, the ΛcΛc scattering should not be affected by the coupling from ΣcΣc. To explore the coupled channel scattering at the energy range close to the ΣcΣc threshold, additional energy levels in this range would be required by incorporating operators with higher momenta. Moreover, the inclusion of the ΞccNπ three-body system would be necessary, which is out of the scope of this study.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Comparison of the energies using both ΛcΛc and ΣcΣc operators (right), and using only ΛcΛc operators (left) for the ensemble F32P30. The black points in the left panel are the results from the GEVP analysis, while the gray points are obtained from the diagonal matrix elements. In the right panel, the black and green points represent the energy levels predominantly overlap with the ΛcΛc and ΣcΣc operators, respectively. The red lines are the free energies of ΛcΛc. The thresholds of ΞccN, ΞccNπ and ΣcΣc are also shown by the blue, orange and green lines, respectively.

    In the remainder of this paper, we focus on the single channel ΛcΛc scattering. For the ensemble F32P30, we computed the correlation function matrix of the four operators ΛcΛc(p2=0,1,2,3) and extracted four energy levels from the GEVP analysis. The highest one is not included in the scattering analysis since it is close to the ΣcΣc and ΞccNπ thresholds. We found that the off-diagonal elements of correlation function matrix are very small and do not contribute to the determination of the energy levels. The energy levels obtained from the diagonal matrix elements are presented in the left panel of Fig. 3, alongside those obtained from GEVP method. The results are nearly identical except the highest one of which the signal is pretty noisy and is excluded in the scattering analysis due to its closeness to the ΣcΣc and ΞccNπ thresholds. For the ensemble F48P30, we employ five operators ΛcΛc(p2=0,1,2,3,4). To save computational cost, only the diagonal correlation functions are calculated.

    In order to accurately extract the energy levels, it is favorable to fit the ratio of the two-baryon correlation function to the square of the single baryon correlation function:

    R(t)=CnΛcΛc(t)CnΛc(t)CnΛc(t)AeΔEnt,n=0,1,2,,

    (11)

    where CnΛcΛc(t) is the n-th eigenvalue from the GEVP analysis for the ensemble F32P30 or the diagonal ΛcΛc correlation functions in the case of F48P30, CnΛc(t) is the correlation function of the single Λc with momentum p2=n. ΔEn, representing the energy shift of the ΛcΛc system with respect to two free Λc with momentum p2=n, is obtained by fitting R(t) to an exponential function. In Fig. 4, we display the effective mass calculated from the ratio R(t) for all energy levels, the fitted ΔE and fitting ranges are also illustrated by the horizontal bands in the plot. The results are collected in Table 3. The interacting energies of the di-Λc system are then calculated as:

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Effective mass calculated from the ratio defined in Eq. (11). The red horizontal bands indicate the fitted values of ΔE and the fitting ranges.

    Table 3

    Table 3.  The values of ΔE fitted from the ratio defined in Eq. (11).
    aΔE0 aΔE1 aΔE2 aΔE3 aΔE4
    F32P30 0.00085(47) 0.00475(93) 0.0085(15) 0.0070(16)
    F48P30 0.00070(15) 0.00255(56) 0.00433(48) 0.00259(50) 0.00268(37)
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    En=ΔEn+2m2Λc+n(2πL)2,n=0,1,2,

    (12)

    Instead of using the dispersion relation determined by fitting the Λc energies computed on lattice, where the speed of light c deviates from 1, we employ the continuum dispersion to estimate the free energies. The En's calculated in this way approximate the interacting energies under the continuum dispersion relation, and is used to determine the scattering parameters through Lüscher's formula in the subsequent analysis. Since the continuum dispersion relation is implicitly applied in the derivation of Lüscher's formula and its generalizations, this approach is expected to alleviate the effects of the deviation from the continuum dispersion relation, as has been discussed and applied in the charmed meson scattering calculations [4547]. The En's are plotted in Fig. 5 along with the free energies and the solution of the Lüscher's equation, which will be explained in the next section.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5.  (color online) Finite-volume spectrum of ΛcΛc system. The data points are the energy levels calculated from Eq. (12). The red solid lines are the free energies of ΛcΛc. The blue, green and red dashed lines are the thresholds of ΞccN, ΣcΣc and ΞccNπ, respectively. The orange bands are the solutions of the Lüscher's equation from "fit1", which will be explained in the next section.

    Lüscher's finite volume method provides a direct relation between the energy of a two-particle system in a finite box and the scattering phase shift of the two particles in infinite volume. We consider two Λc particles in the rest frame. The finite volume energies are computed in the A+1 irrep of the Oh group. If we ignore the contributions of the partial waves l4, Lüscher's formula reads

    kcotδ(k)=2πLZ00(1;q2),

    (13)

    where δ(k) is the s-wave scattering phase shift, the momentum k is related to the finite-volume energy E by E=2m2Λc+k2, Z00 is the zeta function and the dimensionless variable q=L2πk.

    We use the effective range expansion up to O(k2) to parameterize the phase shift:

    kcotδ(k)=1a0+12r0k2.

    (14)

    The parameters a0 and r0 are determined by minimizing the χ2 defined as

    χ2=L,n,n[En(L)Esol.n(L,a0,r0)]C1nn[En(L)Esol.n(L,a0,r0)],

    (15)

    where En(L) is the n-th energy level obtained on the lattice with size L, Esol.n(L,a0,r0) is the n-th solution of Eq. (13) with parameters a0 and r0. C is the covariance matrix of En(L).

    In order to check the finite volume effects, we determined the scattering parameters using the energies from the ensembles F32P30 and F48P30 separately. The results are consistent with each other within 1σ of the statistical uncertainty, suggesting negligible finite volume effects. Our final results are then determined using the energies from both ensembles. Considering that the effective range expansion is valid only near the threshold, we also estimated the systematic error arising from variations of k2 range in the expansion. We performed the fit using two different data sets: 1. using all energy levels of the two ensembles, and 2. excluding the highest two energy levels. The discrepancy between these two fits is considered as the systematic error from the ERE parameterization. The fit results are summarized in Table 4. As we only have one lattice spacing, we are not able to estimate the systematic uncertainty associated with the finite lattice spacing. However, in the dispersion relation of Λc, the value of c2 is deviated from 1 by around 4%, we expect that this effect should be much smaller than the statistical error. Further investigation on the discretization effects needs to do the calculations at various lattice spacings. Different choice of the fit range used to determin the ΔE values from Eq. (11) may also cause variance in the final results. To assess this systematic effect, we selected 5-8 different fit ranges for each of the eight energy levels, ensuring that the χ2 value remains reasonable. Then we randomly chose one fit range for each energy level and determined the scattering parameters from these energy levels. This procedure was repeated 100 times. The mean values and standard errors of the scattering parameters from these 100 measurements are a0=0.21(4)fm,r0=0.03(18)fm, which are in excellent agreement with the "fit1" results in Table 4. These errors are then estimated as the systematic errors arising from the choice of fit ranges and added quadratically to the systematic error from the ERE parameterization to obtain the total systematic error in our final results.

    Table 4

    Table 4.  Results of the scattering parameters by fitting the energies from the ensembles F32P30 and F48P30 separately and collectively (F32P30&F48P30). "fit1" uses all energy levels of the two ensembles, while "fit2" excludes the highest two energy levels.
    F32P30 F48P30 F32P30&F48P30
    fit1 fit2
    a0/fm −0.21(5) −0.21(4) −0.21(4) −0.28(6)
    r0/fm −0.22(21) 0.11(15) −0.05(13) −0.23(11)
    χ2/dof 0.08 2.3 1.6 0.3
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Our final results of the scattering length and effective range are

    a0=0.21(4)(8) fm,r0=0.05(13)(25) fm,

    (16)

    where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic. The energy dependence of the phase shift is plotted in Fig. 6. In the scattering amplitude, there are no poles in the investigated energy range.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6.  (color online) Energy dependence of the phase shift.

    We present the lattice QCD study of ΛcΛc scattering based on two gauge ensembles with 2+1 dynamical flavors at pion mass 303 MeV and lattice spacing 0.07746 fm. The finite volume spectrum of the ΛcΛc system is calculated in the rest frame and Lüscher's finite volume formalism is utilized to determine the scattering parameters from the finite-volume spectrum. It is found that the interaction between two Λc baryons is repulsive. The scattering length and effective range are a0=0.21(4)(8) fm, r0=0.05(13)(25) fm, respectively, where the first error is the statistical error and the second is the systematic error arising from the ERE expansion. We did not estimate the discretization error since we only have one lattice spacing.

    In this study, the effects of the coupled channels ΞccN and ΣcΣc are ignored in the scattering analysis. We computed the spectrum with both ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators, and observed that these types of operators do not mix with each other. Therefore, we opted not to include the ΞccN channel in the scattering analysis. Furthermore, since the energy range explored is well below the ΣcΣc threshold, this channel is also ignored. To adequately investigate the coupled channel effects, more energy levels in the finite volume need to be calculated using more operators that interpolate the three channels with various momentum combinations. In addition, the ΞccNπ three particle scattering needs to be included since its threshold is below the ΣcΣc threshold in our ensembles. These tasks pose significant numerical and theoretical challenges, necessitating further efforts in the future to address these issues.

    We thank the CLQCD collaborations for providing us the gauge configurations [34], which are generated on the HPC Cluster of ITP-CAS, the Southern Nuclear Science Computing Center(SNSC), the Siyuan-1 cluster supported by the Center for High Performance Computing at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the Dongjiang Yuan Intelligent Computing Center. Software Chroma [48] and QUDA [4951] are used to generate the configurations and solve the perambulators. We are grateful to Hongxin Dong, Feng-Kun Guo, Wei Kou, Xiaopeng Wang and Haobo Yan for valuable discussions.

    [1] R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 195 (1977) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 617 (1977)]
    [2] S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 87, 034506 (2013), arXiv: 1206.5219 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034506
    [3] S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. C 88, 024003 (2013), arXiv: 1301.5790 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024003
    [4] E. Berkowitz, T. Kurth, A. Nicholson et al., Phys. Lett. B 765, 285 (2017), arXiv: 1508.00886 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.024
    [5] K. Orginos et al., (NPLQCD Collaboration)Phys. Rev. D 92, 114512 (2015) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 102, 039903 (2020)]., arXiv: 1508.07583
    [6] M. L. Wagman et al. (NPLQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 96, 114510 (2017), arXiv: 1706.06550 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.114510
    [7] B. Hörz et al., Phys. Rev. C 103, 014003 (2021), arXiv: 2009.11825 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014003
    [8] S. Amarasinghe, R. Baghdadi, Z. Davoudi et al., Phys. Rev. D 107, 094508 (2023), arXiv: 2108.10835 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094508
    [9] J. R. Green, A. D. Hanlon, P. M. Junnarkar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242003 (2021), arXiv: 2103.01054 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.242003
    [10] A. Francis, J. R. Green, P. M. Junnarkar et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 074505 (2019), arXiv: 1805.03966 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074505
    [11] K. Sasaki et al. (HAL QCD), Nucl. Phys. A 998, 121737 (2020), arXiv: 1912.08630 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.121737
    [12] Y. Yamaguchi and T. Hyodo, Phys. Rev. C 94, 065207 (2016), arXiv: 1607.04053 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.065207
    [13] S. R. Beane et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. A 26, 2587 (2011), arXiv: 1103.2821 doi: 10.1142/S0217732311036978
    [14] P. E. Shanahan, A. W. Thomas, and R. D. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 092004 (2011), arXiv: 1106.2851 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.092004
    [15] X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo, and B. S. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phys. 73, 125201 (2021), arXiv: 2108.02673 doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/ac27a2
    [16] R. Chen, A. Hosaka, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 116012 (2017), arXiv: 1707.08306 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.116012
    [17] N. Lee, Z. G. Luo, X. L. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. D 84, 014031 (2011), arXiv: 1104.4257 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.014031
    [18] W. Meguro, Y. R. Liu, and M. Oka, Phys. Lett. B 704, 547 (2011), arXiv: 1105.3693 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.09.088
    [19] H. Huang, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 89, 035201 (2014), arXiv: 1311.4732 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.035201
    [20] M. Oka, Nucl. Phys. A 914, 447 (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.01.024
    [21] H. Garcilazo and A. Valcarce, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 720 (2020), arXiv: 2008.00675 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8320-0
    [22] N. Li and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014020 (2012), arXiv: 1204.3364 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.014020
    [23] S. M. Gerasyuta and E. E. Matskevich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 21, 1250058 (2012), arXiv: 1109.2338 doi: 10.1142/S0218301312500589
    [24] J. X. Lu, L. S. Geng, and M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D 99, 074026 (2019), arXiv: 1706.02588 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074026
    [25] Y. Lyu, H. Tong, T. Sugiura et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 072003 (2021), arXiv: 2102.00181 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.072003
    [26] N. Mathur, M. Padmanath, and D. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 111901 (2023), arXiv: 2205.02862 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.111901
    [27] P. M. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054511 (2022), arXiv: 2206.02942 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.054511
    [28] P. M. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014512 (2025), arXiv: 2410.08519 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.014512
    [29] P. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 162003 (2019), arXiv: 1906.06054 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.162003
    [30] T. F. Carames and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D 92, 034015 (2015), arXiv: 1507.08278 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.034015
    [31] M. Lüscher, Commun. Math. Phys. 104, 177 (1986) doi: 10.1007/BF01211589
    [32] M. Lüscher, Commun. Math. Phys. 105, 153 (1986) doi: 10.1007/BF01211097
    [33] M. Lüscher, Nucl. Phys. B 354, 531 (1991) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(91)90366-6
    [34] Z. C. Hu et al. (CLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 109, 054507 (2024), arXiv: 2310.00814 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.054507
    [35] H. Yan, C. Liu, L. Liu et al., (2024), arXiv: 2404.13479
    [36] H. Y. Du et al., (2024), arXiv: 2408.03548
    [37] H. Liu, L. Liu, P. Sun et al., Phys. Lett. B 841, 137941 (2023), arXiv: 2303.17865 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137941
    [38] H. Xing, J. Liang, L. Liu et al., (2022), arXiv: 2210.08555
    [39] H. Liu, J. He, L. Liu et al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 211011 (2024), arXiv: 2207.00183 doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2205-0
    [40] Q. A. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. C 46, 011002 (2022), arXiv: 2103.07064 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac2b12
    [41] Y. Meng, J. L. Dang, C. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 074511 (2024), arXiv: 2401.13475 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.074511
    [42] H. Yan, M. Garofalo, M. Mai et al., (2024), arXiv: 2407.16659
    [43] M. Peardon et al. (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D 80, 054506 (2009), arXiv: 0905.2160 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.054506
    [44] J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, M. J. Peardon et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 034508 (2010), arXiv: 1004.4930 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.034508
    [45] M. Padmanath and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 032002 (2022), arXiv: 2202.10110 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.032002
    [46] S. Prelovsek, S. Collins, D. Mohler et al., JHEP 06, 035 (2021), arXiv: 2011.02542 doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2021)035
    [47] S. Piemonte, S. Collins, D. Mohler et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 074505 (2019), arXiv: 1905.03506 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.074505
    [48] R. G. Edwards and B. Joo (SciDAC, LH PC, UKQCD), Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 140, 832 (2005), arXiv: hep-lat/0409003 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.11.254
    [49] M. A. Clark et al. (QUDA), Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1517 (2010), arXiv: 0911.3191 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.05.002
    [50] R. Babich et al. (QUDA), In International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (2011), arXiv: 1109.2935
    [51] M. A. Clark et al. (QUDA), In International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (2016), arXiv: 1612.07873
  • [1] R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 195 (1977) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 617 (1977)]
    [2] S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 87, 034506 (2013), arXiv: 1206.5219 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034506
    [3] S. R. Beane et al. (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. C 88, 024003 (2013), arXiv: 1301.5790 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024003
    [4] E. Berkowitz, T. Kurth, A. Nicholson et al., Phys. Lett. B 765, 285 (2017), arXiv: 1508.00886 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.024
    [5] K. Orginos et al., (NPLQCD Collaboration)Phys. Rev. D 92, 114512 (2015) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 102, 039903 (2020)]., arXiv: 1508.07583
    [6] M. L. Wagman et al. (NPLQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 96, 114510 (2017), arXiv: 1706.06550 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.114510
    [7] B. Hörz et al., Phys. Rev. C 103, 014003 (2021), arXiv: 2009.11825 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014003
    [8] S. Amarasinghe, R. Baghdadi, Z. Davoudi et al., Phys. Rev. D 107, 094508 (2023), arXiv: 2108.10835 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094508
    [9] J. R. Green, A. D. Hanlon, P. M. Junnarkar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242003 (2021), arXiv: 2103.01054 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.242003
    [10] A. Francis, J. R. Green, P. M. Junnarkar et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 074505 (2019), arXiv: 1805.03966 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074505
    [11] K. Sasaki et al. (HAL QCD), Nucl. Phys. A 998, 121737 (2020), arXiv: 1912.08630 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.121737
    [12] Y. Yamaguchi and T. Hyodo, Phys. Rev. C 94, 065207 (2016), arXiv: 1607.04053 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.065207
    [13] S. R. Beane et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. A 26, 2587 (2011), arXiv: 1103.2821 doi: 10.1142/S0217732311036978
    [14] P. E. Shanahan, A. W. Thomas, and R. D. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 092004 (2011), arXiv: 1106.2851 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.092004
    [15] X. K. Dong, F. K. Guo, and B. S. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phys. 73, 125201 (2021), arXiv: 2108.02673 doi: 10.1088/1572-9494/ac27a2
    [16] R. Chen, A. Hosaka, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 116012 (2017), arXiv: 1707.08306 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.116012
    [17] N. Lee, Z. G. Luo, X. L. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. D 84, 014031 (2011), arXiv: 1104.4257 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.014031
    [18] W. Meguro, Y. R. Liu, and M. Oka, Phys. Lett. B 704, 547 (2011), arXiv: 1105.3693 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.09.088
    [19] H. Huang, J. Ping, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 89, 035201 (2014), arXiv: 1311.4732 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.035201
    [20] M. Oka, Nucl. Phys. A 914, 447 (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.01.024
    [21] H. Garcilazo and A. Valcarce, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 720 (2020), arXiv: 2008.00675 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8320-0
    [22] N. Li and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014020 (2012), arXiv: 1204.3364 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.014020
    [23] S. M. Gerasyuta and E. E. Matskevich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 21, 1250058 (2012), arXiv: 1109.2338 doi: 10.1142/S0218301312500589
    [24] J. X. Lu, L. S. Geng, and M. P. Valderrama, Phys. Rev. D 99, 074026 (2019), arXiv: 1706.02588 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.074026
    [25] Y. Lyu, H. Tong, T. Sugiura et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 072003 (2021), arXiv: 2102.00181 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.072003
    [26] N. Mathur, M. Padmanath, and D. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 111901 (2023), arXiv: 2205.02862 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.111901
    [27] P. M. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054511 (2022), arXiv: 2206.02942 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.054511
    [28] P. M. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014512 (2025), arXiv: 2410.08519 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.014512
    [29] P. Junnarkar and N. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 162003 (2019), arXiv: 1906.06054 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.162003
    [30] T. F. Carames and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D 92, 034015 (2015), arXiv: 1507.08278 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.034015
    [31] M. Lüscher, Commun. Math. Phys. 104, 177 (1986) doi: 10.1007/BF01211589
    [32] M. Lüscher, Commun. Math. Phys. 105, 153 (1986) doi: 10.1007/BF01211097
    [33] M. Lüscher, Nucl. Phys. B 354, 531 (1991) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(91)90366-6
    [34] Z. C. Hu et al. (CLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 109, 054507 (2024), arXiv: 2310.00814 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.054507
    [35] H. Yan, C. Liu, L. Liu et al., (2024), arXiv: 2404.13479
    [36] H. Y. Du et al., (2024), arXiv: 2408.03548
    [37] H. Liu, L. Liu, P. Sun et al., Phys. Lett. B 841, 137941 (2023), arXiv: 2303.17865 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137941
    [38] H. Xing, J. Liang, L. Liu et al., (2022), arXiv: 2210.08555
    [39] H. Liu, J. He, L. Liu et al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 211011 (2024), arXiv: 2207.00183 doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2205-0
    [40] Q. A. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. C 46, 011002 (2022), arXiv: 2103.07064 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac2b12
    [41] Y. Meng, J. L. Dang, C. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 074511 (2024), arXiv: 2401.13475 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.074511
    [42] H. Yan, M. Garofalo, M. Mai et al., (2024), arXiv: 2407.16659
    [43] M. Peardon et al. (Hadron Spectrum), Phys. Rev. D 80, 054506 (2009), arXiv: 0905.2160 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.054506
    [44] J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, M. J. Peardon et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 034508 (2010), arXiv: 1004.4930 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.034508
    [45] M. Padmanath and S. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 032002 (2022), arXiv: 2202.10110 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.032002
    [46] S. Prelovsek, S. Collins, D. Mohler et al., JHEP 06, 035 (2021), arXiv: 2011.02542 doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2021)035
    [47] S. Piemonte, S. Collins, D. Mohler et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 074505 (2019), arXiv: 1905.03506 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.074505
    [48] R. G. Edwards and B. Joo (SciDAC, LH PC, UKQCD), Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 140, 832 (2005), arXiv: hep-lat/0409003 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.11.254
    [49] M. A. Clark et al. (QUDA), Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1517 (2010), arXiv: 0911.3191 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.05.002
    [50] R. Babich et al. (QUDA), In International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (2011), arXiv: 1109.2935
    [51] M. A. Clark et al. (QUDA), In International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (2016), arXiv: 1612.07873
  • 加载中

Figures(6) / Tables(4)

Get Citation
Hanyang Xing, Yiqi Geng, Chuan Liu, Liuming Liu, Peng Sun, Jiajun Wu, Zhicheng Yan and Ruilin Zhu. Lattice QCD study of ΛcΛc scattering[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/adc11f
Hanyang Xing, Yiqi Geng, Chuan Liu, Liuming Liu, Peng Sun, Jiajun Wu, Zhicheng Yan and Ruilin Zhu. Lattice QCD study of ΛcΛc scattering[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/adc11f shu
Milestone
Received: 2025-02-08
Article Metric

Article Views(392)
PDF Downloads(17)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Lattice QCD study of ΛcΛc scattering

    Corresponding author: Yiqi Geng, yqgeng@njnu.edu.cn
    Corresponding author: Liuming Liu, liuming@impcas.ac.cn
    Corresponding author: Peng Sun, pengsun@impcas.ac.cn
  • 1. Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
  • 2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 3. Department of Physics and Institute of Theoretical Physics, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
  • 4. School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
  • 5. Center for High Energy Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
  • 6. Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter, Beijing 100871, China

Abstract: We present the first lattice result of the near threshold ΛcΛc scattering with I(JP)=0(0+). The calculation is performed on two Nf=2+1 Wilson-Clover ensembles with pion mass mπ303 MeV and lattice spacing a=0.07746 fm. Lüscher's finite volume method is utilized to extract the scattering parameters from the finite-volume spectrum. The coupled channel ΞccN is ignored in the scattering analysis based on the observation that the energy levels computed from the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators do not mix. The ΣcΣc channel is not included either since the energy range explored in this study is well below its threshold. Our results indicate that the interaction in the ΛcΛc single channel is repulsive, and the scattering length is determined to be a0=0.21(4)(8) fm, where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • The study of hadron-hadron interactions is an essential part of understanding the strong interactions and its underlying theory — quantum chromodynamics(QCD). Among them, dibaryon systems have rich dynamics in nature. The only known dibaryon bound state is the deuteron. A possible SU(3) flavor-singlet bound state, the H-dibaryon composed of two Λ baryons, was proposed a long time ago [1], but has not been observed in experiments yet. Compared to meson-meson scattering, lattice QCD study of baryon-baryon scattering is more challenging mainly due to the poor signal and complexity in the contractions of dibaryon correlation functions. The lattice results on nucleon-nucleon scattering and the binding nature of the deuteron are still controversial to date [28]. Concerning the H-dibaryon, most lattice studies found attractive interactions between two Λ baryons, but consensus on whether they can form a bound state and the magnitude of the binding energy remain elusive [914]. The bound states of two heavy baryons have also been predicted in theoretical studies [1524]. However, experimental data on the interactions of two heavy baryons are scarce due to the difficulty in producing them in experiments. On the lattice side, there are few studies on the scattering of two heavy baryons [25, 26], where the bound states of ΩcccΩccc and ΩbbbΩbbb were predicted, respectively. The ground state energy spectra of various heavy dibaryons were also investigated in lattice QCD [2729]. In this study, we focus on the scattering of two Λc baryons, analogous to the H-dibaryon, but with the strange quarks replaced by charm quarks.

      ΛcΛc scattering has been investigated in many theoretical studies, but the results are inconclusive. In studies such as Refs. [16, 23, 24], a bound state was identified in the single channel ΛcΛc scattering. Conversely, the results in Refs. [15, 17, 21, 30] do not support the existence of such a bound state. Other works suggest that ΛcΛc cannot form a bound state in a single channel, but coupling to ΣcΣc may lead to the formation of a bound state below the ΛcΛc threshold [1820, 22]. As a first-principle method, lattice QCD calculation of ΛcΛc scattering may provide crucial information for other theoretical studies.

      This work presents the lattice QCD calculation of ΛcΛc scattering based on the 2+1 flavor gauge ensembles with pion mass mπ303 MeV and lattice spacing a=0.07746 fm. Lüscher's finite volume method [3133] is employed to extract scattering information from the finite-volume spectrum. The scattering length and effective range of ΛcΛc scattering are obtained, and the results indicate repulsive interaction. The coupling with NΞcc and ΣcΣc is also discussed.

      This paper is organized as follows. The details of the gauge ensembles and computational methods are introduced in Sec. II. In Sec. III, we present the single particle spectrum and two-particle finite-volume spectrum. The scattering analysis and results are presented in Sec. IV, followed by a summary in Sec. V.

    II.   COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS
    • The results presented in this paper are based on the gauge configurations generated by the CLQCD collaboration with 2+1 dynamical quark flavors using the tadpole improved tree level Symanzik gauge action and Clover fermion action [34]. Numerous studies have been performed on these configurations, see e.g. [3542]. In this work, we use two ensembles with the same pion mass mπ303 MeV and lattice spacing a=0.07746 fm, but with different volumes. The parameters of the two ensembles are listed in Table 1. The valence charm quark mass is tuned to reproduce the physical spin-averaged mass of ηc and J/Ψ, i.e. 14Mηc+34MJ/Ψ. The value of mπL is 3.81 and 5.72 for the two ensembles respectively. We expect that the volume corrections to the hadron energies, which are typically suppressed as emπL, should not have noticeable impact on our final results.

      Ensemble β a/fm (L/a)3×T/a aml ams mπ/MeV mK/MeV Nconf
      F32P30 6.41 0.07746(18) 323×96 -0.2295 -0.2050 303.2(1.3) 524.6(1.8) 567
      F48P30 6.41 0.07746(18) 483×96 -0.2295 -0.2050 303.4(0.9) 523.6(1.4) 201

      Table 1.  Parameters of the ensembles. The listed parameters are the coupling β, lattice spacing a, volume (L/a)3×T/a, the bare quark masses for the light (aml) and strange (ams) quarks, the pion/Kaon mass mπ/K and the number of configurations Nconf.

      The distillation quark smearing method [43] is used to compute the quark propagators. The smearing operator is composed of a small number (Nev) of the eigenvectors associated with the Nev lowest eigenvalues of the three-dimensional Laplacian defined in terms of the HYP-smeared gauge field. The number of eigenvectors Nev is 100 for the ensemble F32P30 and 200 for the ensemble F48P30.

    III.   SPECTRUM DETERMINATION
    • We are interested in ΛcΛc scattering with I(JP)=0(0+). The coupled channels ΞccN and ΣcΣc were also investigated. In this section, we present the spectrum of the relevant single particles, i.e., Λc, Ξcc, N and Σc. Then we discuss the finite-volume spectrum of the two-particle systems, which was used to extract the scattering parameters through Lüscher's method.

    • A.   Single-baryon spectrum

    • The interpolating operators of Λc, Ξcc, N and Σc can be expressed as

      Λc,α=ϵijk(uiTCγ5dj)ckα,

      (1)

      Ξ++cc,α=ϵijk(uiTCγ5cj)ckα,Ξ+cc,α=ϵijk(diTCγ5cj)ckα,

      (2)

      pα=ϵijk(uiTCγ5dj)ukα,nα=ϵijk(uiTCγ5dj)dkα,

      (3)

      Σ++c,α=ϵijk(uiTCγ5cj)ukα,Σ+c,α=12ϵijk[(uiTCγ5cj)dkα+(diTCγ5cj)ukα],Σ0c,α=ϵijk(diTCγ5cj)dkα,

      (4)

      where u,d,c represent the quark fields, i,j,k are color indices and α={1,2,3,4} is the Dirac four-spinor index in the Dirac basis. These single-particle operators are the building blocks of the two-baryon operators.

      The masses of the baryons are then obtained from the correlation functions of the above interpolating operators

      C(p,t)=tsrc0|Oα(p,t+tsrc)P+αβOβ(p,tsrc)|0,

      (5)

      where P+=12(1+γ4) is the positive parity projection operator, the source-time tsrc is summed over all time slices to increase the statistics, O(p,t) is the momentum projected operator defined as O(p,t)=xeipxO(x,t). The dispersion relation E2=m20+c2p2 is investigated by calculating the single-particle energy at the five lowest momenta on the lattice: p= (0,0,0), (0,0,1), (0,1,1), (1,1,1), (0,0,2) in units of 2π/L. The effective mass of Λc at the five momenta for the ensemble F32P30 is shown in the left panel of Fig. 1. We fit the correlation functions to an exponential form C(t)=AeEt to obtain the energies. The range for fitting, denoted as [tmin,tmax] is selected as follows: tmax is set to a sufficiently large value where the error becomes significant. We then adjust the tmin until the fitted mass stabilizes, indicating that the fitting is reliable. The χ2/d.o.f is generally around 1. In the middle panel of Fig. 1, we display the fitted mass at different tmin, along with the corresponding χ2/d.o.f for fitting the zero momentum Λc correlation function. The chosen tmin is highlighted by the dark red point in the lower panel. For each baryon, we fit the five energies at the five momenta to the dispersion relation to get the parameters m0 and c. The results are collected in Table 2. The values of c for Λc, Σc and Ξcc tend to deviate from 1, primarily due to lattice artifacts stemming from the charm quark. The effects of these lattice artifacts are discussed in greater detail later on. In the right panel of Fig. 1, we display the fitting of the dispersion relation for Λc.

      Figure 1.  (color online) Left: the effective mass of Λc at the five momenta. The fitted mass and fitting range are indicated by the horizontal band. Middle: The fitted mass of the zero momentum Λc at different tmin. The corresponding values of χ2/d.o.f of the fits are also shown in the lower part of the plot, where the chosen tmin is highlighted by the red point. Right: The fit of the dispersion relation for Λc. All of the three plots are for the ensemble F32P30.

      ΛcΣcΞccN
      m0/GeVcm0/GeVcm0/GeVcm0/GeVc
      F32P302.413(3)0.991(8)2.572(3)1.01(1)3.747(1)0.948(5)1.070(4)1.01(1)
      F48P302.410(1)0.988(7)2.566(1)1.01(1)3.7504(7)0.931(8)1.062(2)1.005(8)

      Table 2.  Fit results of the dispersion relation for Λc, Σc, Ξcc and N.

    • B.   Spectra of dibaryon systems

    • We focus on the S-wave scattering in the I(JP)=0(0+) channel. Therefore we construct the dibaryon operators in the A+1 irreducible representation(irrep) of the octahedral group (Oh), which is the rotational symmetry group on lattice. The operators for ΛcΛc, ΞccN and ΣcΣc are:

      OΛcΛc(|p|,t)=α,β,pcα,β,pΛc,α(p,t)Λc,β(p,t),

      (6)

      OΞccN(|p|,t))=α,β,pcα,β,p(Ξ++cc,α(p,t)nβ(p,t)Ξ+cc,α(p,t)pβ(p,t)),

      (7)

      OΣcΣc(|p|,t))=α,β,pcα,β,p(Σ++c,α(p,t)Σ0c,β(p,t)Σ+c,α(p,t)Σ+c,β(p,t)+Σ0c,α(p,t)Σ++c,β(p,t)),

      (8)

      where the coefficients cα,β,p are chosen such that the operators transform in the A+1 irrep. To be specific, for a given |p|, the non-zero coefficients are c1,2,p=1 and c2,1,p=1 for all p. We only used the operators with zero total momentum.

      The spectra of the dibaryon systems in finite volume are determined from the matrix of correlation functions of the operators:

      Cij(t)=tsrc0|Oi(t+tsrc)Oj(tsrc)|0.

      (9)

      Solving the generalized eigenvalue problem(GEVP)

      C(t)vn(t)=λn(t)C(t0)vn(t),

      (10)

      the energies can be extracted from the time dependence of the eigenvalues λn(t). We set t0=4 and fit the eigenvalues to a two-exponential form λn(t)=AneEn(tt0)+(1An)eEn(tt0) to obtain the n-th energy level En. The overlap factor between the n-th GEVP eigenstate and i-th operator can be evaluated as n|Oi|0=2mnvnjCji(t0) [44].

      In order to investigate the coupling between ΛcΛc and ΞccN, we compute the matrix of the correlation functions of the four operators: OΛcΛc(p2=0,1) and OΞccN(p2=0,1)). We found negligible coupling between the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators. In Fig. 2(a), we compare the energy levels obtained from the GEVP analysis using the four operators (right panel) and those obtained using only the two ΛcΛc operators (left panel). In the right panel, the black and blue points present the energy levels predominantly overlap with the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators, respectively. The overlaps of the operators onto the eigenstates are shown in Fig. 2(b) for the ensemble F32P30. The overlaps for the ensemble F48P30 exhibit a similar pattern. These overlaps are calculated at time slice t=14, which is the region where the fit windows are typically situated. It is evident that the two energy levels primarily associated with the ΛcΛc operators are almost identical to the energies obtained using only the ΛcΛc operators. Therefore, in this study we did not consider the coupling effects from the ΞccN channel.

      Figure 2.  (color online) (a) Comparison of the energies using both ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators (right), and using only ΛcΛc operators (left) for the ensembles F32P30 and F48P30. The red and blue lines represent non-interacting ΛcΛc and ΞccN channel threshold, respectively. In the right panel, the black and blue points represent the energy levels predominantly overlap with the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators, respectively. (b) The overlaps of the operators onto the eigenstates from the GEVP analysis using the ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators for the ensemble F32P30. The red and blue bars represent the operators ΛcΛc and ΞccN respectively. n=0,1,2,3 are the eigenstates with energy from low to high.

      ΣcΣc can also couple to ΛcΛc. Its threshold is considerably higher than ΛcΛc. As shown later, the energy range in which we perform scattering analysis lies well below the ΣcΣc threshold. However, we still checked the effects of the ΣcΣc channel by computing the correlation function matrix of the five operators: OΛcΛc(p2=0,1,2,3) and OΣcΣc(p2=0) for the ensemble F32P30. In Fig. 3, we compare the energy levels from the GEVP analysis with and without ΣcΣc operator. The lowest three energies, which predominantly couple to the operators OΛcΛc(p2=0,1,2), exhibit close agreement between the two cases. The energy level close to the ΛcΛc(p2=3) free energy is shifted slightly upon the inclusion of the ΣcΣc operator. For the subsequent scattering analysis, we cut the energy at around aE=1.98. In this range, the ΛcΛc scattering should not be affected by the coupling from ΣcΣc. To explore the coupled channel scattering at the energy range close to the ΣcΣc threshold, additional energy levels in this range would be required by incorporating operators with higher momenta. Moreover, the inclusion of the ΞccNπ three-body system would be necessary, which is out of the scope of this study.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Comparison of the energies using both ΛcΛc and ΣcΣc operators (right), and using only ΛcΛc operators (left) for the ensemble F32P30. The black points in the left panel are the results from the GEVP analysis, while the gray points are obtained from the diagonal matrix elements. In the right panel, the black and green points represent the energy levels predominantly overlap with the ΛcΛc and ΣcΣc operators, respectively. The red lines are the free energies of ΛcΛc. The thresholds of ΞccN, ΞccNπ and ΣcΣc are also shown by the blue, orange and green lines, respectively.

      In the remainder of this paper, we focus on the single channel ΛcΛc scattering. For the ensemble F32P30, we computed the correlation function matrix of the four operators ΛcΛc(p2=0,1,2,3) and extracted four energy levels from the GEVP analysis. The highest one is not included in the scattering analysis since it is close to the ΣcΣc and ΞccNπ thresholds. We found that the off-diagonal elements of correlation function matrix are very small and do not contribute to the determination of the energy levels. The energy levels obtained from the diagonal matrix elements are presented in the left panel of Fig. 3, alongside those obtained from GEVP method. The results are nearly identical except the highest one of which the signal is pretty noisy and is excluded in the scattering analysis due to its closeness to the ΣcΣc and ΞccNπ thresholds. For the ensemble F48P30, we employ five operators ΛcΛc(p2=0,1,2,3,4). To save computational cost, only the diagonal correlation functions are calculated.

      In order to accurately extract the energy levels, it is favorable to fit the ratio of the two-baryon correlation function to the square of the single baryon correlation function:

      R(t)=CnΛcΛc(t)CnΛc(t)CnΛc(t)AeΔEnt,n=0,1,2,,

      (11)

      where CnΛcΛc(t) is the n-th eigenvalue from the GEVP analysis for the ensemble F32P30 or the diagonal ΛcΛc correlation functions in the case of F48P30, CnΛc(t) is the correlation function of the single Λc with momentum p2=n. ΔEn, representing the energy shift of the ΛcΛc system with respect to two free Λc with momentum p2=n, is obtained by fitting R(t) to an exponential function. In Fig. 4, we display the effective mass calculated from the ratio R(t) for all energy levels, the fitted ΔE and fitting ranges are also illustrated by the horizontal bands in the plot. The results are collected in Table 3. The interacting energies of the di-Λc system are then calculated as:

      Figure 4.  (color online) Effective mass calculated from the ratio defined in Eq. (11). The red horizontal bands indicate the fitted values of ΔE and the fitting ranges.

      aΔE0 aΔE1 aΔE2 aΔE3 aΔE4
      F32P30 0.00085(47) 0.00475(93) 0.0085(15) 0.0070(16)
      F48P30 0.00070(15) 0.00255(56) 0.00433(48) 0.00259(50) 0.00268(37)

      Table 3.  The values of ΔE fitted from the ratio defined in Eq. (11).

      En=ΔEn+2m2Λc+n(2πL)2,n=0,1,2,

      (12)

      Instead of using the dispersion relation determined by fitting the Λc energies computed on lattice, where the speed of light c deviates from 1, we employ the continuum dispersion to estimate the free energies. The En's calculated in this way approximate the interacting energies under the continuum dispersion relation, and is used to determine the scattering parameters through Lüscher's formula in the subsequent analysis. Since the continuum dispersion relation is implicitly applied in the derivation of Lüscher's formula and its generalizations, this approach is expected to alleviate the effects of the deviation from the continuum dispersion relation, as has been discussed and applied in the charmed meson scattering calculations [4547]. The En's are plotted in Fig. 5 along with the free energies and the solution of the Lüscher's equation, which will be explained in the next section.

      Figure 5.  (color online) Finite-volume spectrum of ΛcΛc system. The data points are the energy levels calculated from Eq. (12). The red solid lines are the free energies of ΛcΛc. The blue, green and red dashed lines are the thresholds of ΞccN, ΣcΣc and ΞccNπ, respectively. The orange bands are the solutions of the Lüscher's equation from "fit1", which will be explained in the next section.

    IV.   SCATTERING ANALYSES AND RESULTS
    • Lüscher's finite volume method provides a direct relation between the energy of a two-particle system in a finite box and the scattering phase shift of the two particles in infinite volume. We consider two Λc particles in the rest frame. The finite volume energies are computed in the A+1 irrep of the Oh group. If we ignore the contributions of the partial waves l4, Lüscher's formula reads

      kcotδ(k)=2πLZ00(1;q2),

      (13)

      where δ(k) is the s-wave scattering phase shift, the momentum k is related to the finite-volume energy E by E=2m2Λc+k2, Z00 is the zeta function and the dimensionless variable q=L2πk.

      We use the effective range expansion up to O(k2) to parameterize the phase shift:

      kcotδ(k)=1a0+12r0k2.

      (14)

      The parameters a0 and r0 are determined by minimizing the χ2 defined as

      χ2=L,n,n[En(L)Esol.n(L,a0,r0)]C1nn[En(L)Esol.n(L,a0,r0)],

      (15)

      where En(L) is the n-th energy level obtained on the lattice with size L, Esol.n(L,a0,r0) is the n-th solution of Eq. (13) with parameters a0 and r0. C is the covariance matrix of En(L).

      In order to check the finite volume effects, we determined the scattering parameters using the energies from the ensembles F32P30 and F48P30 separately. The results are consistent with each other within 1σ of the statistical uncertainty, suggesting negligible finite volume effects. Our final results are then determined using the energies from both ensembles. Considering that the effective range expansion is valid only near the threshold, we also estimated the systematic error arising from variations of k2 range in the expansion. We performed the fit using two different data sets: 1. using all energy levels of the two ensembles, and 2. excluding the highest two energy levels. The discrepancy between these two fits is considered as the systematic error from the ERE parameterization. The fit results are summarized in Table 4. As we only have one lattice spacing, we are not able to estimate the systematic uncertainty associated with the finite lattice spacing. However, in the dispersion relation of Λc, the value of c2 is deviated from 1 by around 4%, we expect that this effect should be much smaller than the statistical error. Further investigation on the discretization effects needs to do the calculations at various lattice spacings. Different choice of the fit range used to determin the ΔE values from Eq. (11) may also cause variance in the final results. To assess this systematic effect, we selected 5-8 different fit ranges for each of the eight energy levels, ensuring that the χ2 value remains reasonable. Then we randomly chose one fit range for each energy level and determined the scattering parameters from these energy levels. This procedure was repeated 100 times. The mean values and standard errors of the scattering parameters from these 100 measurements are a0=0.21(4)fm,r0=0.03(18)fm, which are in excellent agreement with the "fit1" results in Table 4. These errors are then estimated as the systematic errors arising from the choice of fit ranges and added quadratically to the systematic error from the ERE parameterization to obtain the total systematic error in our final results.

      F32P30 F48P30 F32P30&F48P30
      fit1 fit2
      a0/fm −0.21(5) −0.21(4) −0.21(4) −0.28(6)
      r0/fm −0.22(21) 0.11(15) −0.05(13) −0.23(11)
      χ2/dof 0.08 2.3 1.6 0.3

      Table 4.  Results of the scattering parameters by fitting the energies from the ensembles F32P30 and F48P30 separately and collectively (F32P30&F48P30). "fit1" uses all energy levels of the two ensembles, while "fit2" excludes the highest two energy levels.

      Our final results of the scattering length and effective range are

      a0=0.21(4)(8) fm,r0=0.05(13)(25) fm,

      (16)

      where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic. The energy dependence of the phase shift is plotted in Fig. 6. In the scattering amplitude, there are no poles in the investigated energy range.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Energy dependence of the phase shift.

    V.   SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
    • We present the lattice QCD study of ΛcΛc scattering based on two gauge ensembles with 2+1 dynamical flavors at pion mass 303 MeV and lattice spacing 0.07746 fm. The finite volume spectrum of the ΛcΛc system is calculated in the rest frame and Lüscher's finite volume formalism is utilized to determine the scattering parameters from the finite-volume spectrum. It is found that the interaction between two Λc baryons is repulsive. The scattering length and effective range are a0=0.21(4)(8) fm, r0=0.05(13)(25) fm, respectively, where the first error is the statistical error and the second is the systematic error arising from the ERE expansion. We did not estimate the discretization error since we only have one lattice spacing.

      In this study, the effects of the coupled channels ΞccN and ΣcΣc are ignored in the scattering analysis. We computed the spectrum with both ΛcΛc and ΞccN operators, and observed that these types of operators do not mix with each other. Therefore, we opted not to include the ΞccN channel in the scattering analysis. Furthermore, since the energy range explored is well below the ΣcΣc threshold, this channel is also ignored. To adequately investigate the coupled channel effects, more energy levels in the finite volume need to be calculated using more operators that interpolate the three channels with various momentum combinations. In addition, the ΞccNπ three particle scattering needs to be included since its threshold is below the ΣcΣc threshold in our ensembles. These tasks pose significant numerical and theoretical challenges, necessitating further efforts in the future to address these issues.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • We thank the CLQCD collaborations for providing us the gauge configurations [34], which are generated on the HPC Cluster of ITP-CAS, the Southern Nuclear Science Computing Center(SNSC), the Siyuan-1 cluster supported by the Center for High Performance Computing at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the Dongjiang Yuan Intelligent Computing Center. Software Chroma [48] and QUDA [4951] are used to generate the configurations and solve the perambulators. We are grateful to Hongxin Dong, Feng-Kun Guo, Wei Kou, Xiaopeng Wang and Haobo Yan for valuable discussions.

Reference (51)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return