Institute of Modern Physics

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

The concept of a quantum spin liquid is important for problems ranging from quantum spin chains to high-temperature superconductivity. This review gives a pedagogical introduction to the theoretical concepts behind this fascinating topic, and also discusses the current experimental situation.

Abstract This is the second part of the new evaluation of atomic masses, AME2020. Using least-squares adjustments to all evaluated and accepted experimental data, described in Part I, we derived tables with numerical values and graphs which supersede those given in AME2016. The first table presents the recommended atomic mass values and their uncertainties. It is followed by a table of the influences of data on primary nuclides, a table of various reaction and decay energies, and finally, a series of graphs of separation and decay energies. The last section of this paper provides all input data references that were used in the AME2020 and the NUBASE2020 evaluations.

In the past decade many charmonium-like states were observed experimentally. Especially those charged charmonium-like Z(c) states and bottomonium-like Z(b) states cannot be accommodated within the naive quark model. These charged Z(c) states are good candidates of either the hidden-charm tetraquark states or molecules composed of a pair of charmed mesons. Recently, the LHCb Collaboration discovered two hidden-charm pentaquark states, which are also beyond the quark model. In this work, we review the current experimental progress and investigate various theoretical interpretations of these candidates of the multiquark states. We list the puzzles and theoretical challenges of these models when confronted with the experimental data. We also discuss possible future measurements which may distinguish the theoretical schemes on the underlying structures of the hidden charm multiquark states. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Identified charged-particle spectra of ${\ensuremath{\pi}}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}$, ${K}^{\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}}$, $p$, and $\overline{p}$ at midrapidity ($|y|<0.1$) measured by the $\mathit{dE}/\mathit{dx}$ method in the STAR (solenoidal tracker at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) time projection chamber are reported for $\mathit{pp}$ and $d+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{\mathit{NN}}}=200$ GeV and for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at 62.4, 130, and 200 GeV. Average transverse momenta, total particle production, particle yield ratios, strangeness, and baryon production rates are investigated as a function of the collision system and centrality. The transverse momentum spectra are found to be flatter for heavy particles than for light particles in all collision systems; the effect is more prominent for more central collisions. The extracted average transverse momentum of each particle species follows a trend determined by the total charged-particle multiplicity density. The Bjorken energy density estimate is at least several GeV/${\mathrm{fm}}^{3}$ for a formation time less than 1 fm/$c$. A significantly larger net-baryon density and a stronger increase of the net-baryon density with centrality are found in $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at 62.4 GeV than at the two higher energies. Antibaryon production relative to total particle multiplicity is found to be constant over centrality, but increases with the collision energy. Strangeness production relative to total particle multiplicity is similar at the three measured RHIC energies. Relative strangeness production increases quickly with centrality in peripheral $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions, to a value about 50% above the $\mathit{pp}$ value, and remains rather constant in more central collisions. Bulk freeze-out properties are extracted from thermal equilibrium model and hydrodynamics-motivated blast-wave model fits to the data. Resonance decays are found to have little effect on the extracted kinetic freeze-out parameters because of the transverse momentum range of our measurements. The extracted chemical freeze-out temperature is constant, independent of collision system or centrality; its value is close to the predicted phase-transition temperature, suggesting that chemical freeze-out happens in the vicinity of hadronization and the chemical freeze-out temperature is universal despite the vastly different initial conditions in the collision systems. The extracted kinetic freeze-out temperature, while similar to the chemical freeze-out temperature in $\mathit{pp}$, $d+\mathrm{Au}$, and peripheral $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions, drops significantly with centrality in $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions, whereas the extracted transverse radial flow velocity increases rapidly with centrality. There appears to be a prolonged period of particle elastic scatterings from chemical to kinetic freeze-out in central $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions. The bulk properties extracted at chemical and kinetic freeze-out are observed to evolve smoothly over the measured energy range, collision systems, and collision centralities.

In response to the 2013 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics, the Future Circular Collider (FCC) study was launched, as an international collaboration hosted by CERN. This study covers a highest-luminosity high-energy lepton collider (FCC-ee) and an energy-frontier hadron collider (FCC-hh), which could, successively, be installed in the same 100 km tunnel. The scientific capabilities of the integrated FCC programme would serve the worldwide community throughout the 21st century. The FCC study also investigates an LHC energy upgrade, using FCC-hh technology. This document constitutes the second volume of the FCC Conceptual Design Report, devoted to the electron-positron collider FCC-ee. After summarizing the physics discovery opportunities, it presents the accelerator design, performance reach, a staged operation scenario, the underlying technologies, civil engineering, technical infrastructure, and an implementation plan. FCC-ee can be built with today's technology. Most of the FCC-ee infrastructure could be reused for FCC-hh. Combining concepts from past and present lepton colliders and adding a few novel elements, the FCC-ee design promises outstandingly high luminosity. This will make the FCC-ee a unique precision instrument to study the heaviest known particles (Z, W and H bosons and the top quark), offering great direct and indirect sensitivity to new physics.

Abstract The NUBASE2020 evaluation contains the recommended values of the main nuclear physics properties for all nuclei in their ground and excited, isomeric (T 1/2 100 ns) states. It encompasses all experimental data published in primary (journal articles) and secondary (mainly laboratory reports and conference proceedings) references, together with the corresponding bibliographical information. In cases where no experimental data were available for a particular nuclide, trends in the behavior of specific properties in neighboring nuclei were examined and estimated values are proposed. Evaluation procedures and policies that were used during the development of this evaluated nuclear data library are presented, together with a detailed table of recommended values and their uncertainties.

Abstract: We review the physics opportunities of the Future Circular Collider, covering its e+e-, pp, ep and heavy ion programmes. We describe the measurement capabilities of each FCC component, addressing the study of electroweak, Higgs and strong interactions, the top quark and flavour, as well as phenomena beyond the Standard Model. We highlight the synergy and complementarity of the different colliders, which will contribute to a uniquely coherent and ambitious research programme, providing an unmatchable combination of precision and sensitivity to new physics.

Abstract: In response to the 2013 Update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics (EPPSU), the Future Circular Collider (FCC) study was launched as a world-wide international collaboration hosted by CERN. The FCC study covered an energy-frontier hadron collider (FCC-hh), a highest-luminosity high-energy lepton collider (FCC-ee), the corresponding 100 km tunnel infrastructure, as well as the physics opportunities of these two colliders, and a high-energy LHC, based on FCC-hh technology. This document constitutes the third volume of the FCC Conceptual Design Report, devoted to the hadron collider FCC-hh. It summarizes the FCC-hh physics discovery opportunities, presents the FCC-hh accelerator design, performance reach, and staged operation plan, discusses the underlying technologies, the civil engineering and technical infrastructure, and also sketches a possible implementation. Combining ingredients from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the high-luminosity LHC upgrade and adding novel technologies and approaches, the FCC-hh design aims at significantly extending the energy frontier to 100 TeV. Its unprecedented centre of-mass collision energy will make the FCC-hh a unique instrument to explore physics beyond the Standard Model, offering great direct sensitivity to new physics and discoveries.

The beam-energy scan at RHIC aims to discover whether a critical point exists in the phase diagram of QCD. This paper reports on the most comprehensive measurement of single-particle spectra for a multitude of hadrons from the first run, taken with the STAR experiment. From these the authors infer the kinetic and chemical freeze-out temperatures and the baryon chemical potential as functions of beam energy and centrality. The results provide an opportunity for the beam-energy scan program at RHIC to enlarge the ($T,\ensuremath{\mu}\phantom{\rule{0}{0ex}}B$) region of the phase diagram to search for the QCD critical point.

Abstract The past decades witnessed the golden era of hadron physics. Many excited open heavy flavor mesons and baryons have been observed since 2017. We shall provide an updated review of the recent experimental and theoretical progresses in this active field. Besides the conventional heavy hadrons, we shall also review the recently observed open heavy flavor tetraquark states X (2900) and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mi>T</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3875</mml:mn> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:math> as well as the hidden heavy flavor multiquark states X (6900), <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>P</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>4459</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>Z</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3985</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>Z</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>4000</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>Z</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>c</mml:mi> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>4220</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . We will also cover the recent progresses on the glueballs and light hybrid mesons, which are the direct manifestations of the non-Abelian SU (3) gauge interaction of the Quantum Chromodynamics in the low-energy region.

In the original version of this manuscript, an error was introduced on pp352. '2.7nb:1.6nb' has been corrected to '2.4nb:1.3nb' in the current online and printed version. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz106.

We establish an information-theoretic approach for quantitatively characterizing the non-Markovianity of open quantum processes. Here, the quantum Fisher information (QFI) flow provides a measure to statistically distinguish Markovian and non-Markovian processes. A basic relation between the QFI flow and non-Markovianity is unveiled for quantum dynamics of open systems. For a class of time-local master equations, the exactly analytic solution shows that for each fixed time the QFI flow is decomposed into additive subflows according to different dissipative channels.

The convincing candidate event of the isotope of the 113th element, 278 113, and its daughter nuclei, 274 111 and 270 Mt, were observed, for the first time, in the 209 Bi + 70 Zn reaction at a beam energy of 349.0 MeV with a total dose of 1.7 ×10 19 . Alpha decay energies and decay times of the candidates, 278 113, 274 111, and 270 Mt, were (11.68 ±0.04 MeV, 0.344 ms), (11.15 ±0.07 MeV, 9.26 ms), and (10.03 ±0.07 MeV, 7.16 ms), respectively. The production cross section of the isotope was deduced to be 55 +150 -45 fb (10 -39 cm 2 ).

Parity-odd domains, corresponding to nontrivial topological solutions of the QCD vacuum, might be created during relativistic heavy-ion collisions. These domains are predicted to lead to charge separation of quarks along the system's orbital momentum axis. We investigate a three-particle azimuthal correlator which is a P even observable, but directly sensitive to the charge separation effect. We report measurements of charged hadrons near center-of-mass rapidity with this observable in Au + Au and Cu + Cu collisions at square root of s(NN) = 200 GeV using the STAR detector. A signal consistent with several expectations from the theory is detected. We discuss possible contributions from other effects that are not related to parity violation.

Gas bubbles of nanometer size were produced on atomically flat solid surfaces and imaged by atomic force microscopy (AFM) in tapping mode in water. In AFM images, nanobubbles appeared like bright spheres. Some of the bubbles remained stable for hours during the experiments. The bubbles were disturbed under high load during AFM imaging. A related mechanism is discussed.

We report the beam energy (sqrt[sNN]=7.7-200 GeV) and collision centrality dependence of the mean (M), standard deviation (σ), skewness (S), and kurtosis (κ) of the net-proton multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions. The measurements are carried out by the STAR experiment at midrapidity (|y|<0.5) and within the transverse momentum range 0.4<pT<0.8 GeV/c in the first phase of the Beam Energy Scan program at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. These measurements are important for understanding the quantum chromodynamic phase diagram. The products of the moments, Sσ and κσ2, are sensitive to the correlation length of the hot and dense medium created in the collisions and are related to the ratios of baryon number susceptibilities of corresponding orders. The products of moments are found to have values significantly below the Skellam expectation and close to expectations based on independent proton and antiproton production. The measurements are compared to a transport model calculation to understand the effect of acceptance and baryon number conservation and also to a hadron resonance gas model.

We report the first dark matter search results using the commissioning data from PandaX-4T. Using a time projection chamber with 3.7 tonne of liquid xenon target and an exposure of 0.63 tonne·year, 1058 candidate events are identified within an approximate nuclear recoil energy window between 5 and 100 keV. No significant excess over background is observed. Our data set a stringent limit to the dark matter-nucleon spin-independent interactions, with a lowest excluded cross section (90% C.L.) of 3.8×10^{-47} cm^{2} at a dark matter mass of 40 GeV/c^{2}.