Vectorlike quarks t and partners


 Blaze McDonald
 1 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Vectorlike quarks t and partners Luca Panizzi University of Southampton, UK
2 Outline Motivations and Current Status 2 Couplings and constraints 3 Signatures at LHC
3 Outline Motivations and Current Status 2 Couplings and constraints 3 Signatures at LHC
4 hat are vectorlike fermions? and where do they appear? The lefthanded and righthanded chiralities of a vectorlike fermion ψ transform in the same way under the SM gauge groups SU(3) c SU(2) L U() Y
5 hat are vectorlike fermions? and where do they appear? The lefthanded and righthanded chiralities of a vectorlike fermion ψ transform in the same way under the SM gauge groups SU(3) c SU(2) L U() Y hy are they called vectorlike?
6 hat are vectorlike fermions? and where do they appear? The lefthanded and righthanded chiralities of a vectorlike fermion ψ transform in the same way under the SM gauge groups SU(3) c SU(2) L U() Y hy are they called vectorlike? L = g ) (J µ+ µ + + J µ µ 2 Charged current Lagrangian
7 hat are vectorlike fermions? and where do they appear? The lefthanded and righthanded chiralities of a vectorlike fermion ψ transform in the same way under the SM gauge groups SU(3) c SU(2) L U() Y hy are they called vectorlike? L = g ) (J µ+ µ + + J µ µ 2 Charged current Lagrangian SM chiral quarks: ONLY lefthanded charged currents { J µ+ = J µ+ L + J µ+ J µ+ R with L = ū L γ µ d L = ūγ µ ( γ 5 )d = V A J µ+ R =
8 hat are vectorlike fermions? and where do they appear? The lefthanded and righthanded chiralities of a vectorlike fermion ψ transform in the same way under the SM gauge groups SU(3) c SU(2) L U() Y hy are they called vectorlike? L = g ) (J µ+ µ + + J µ µ 2 Charged current Lagrangian SM chiral quarks: ONLY lefthanded charged currents { J µ+ = J µ+ L + J µ+ J µ+ R with L = ū L γ µ d L = ūγ µ ( γ 5 )d = V A J µ+ R = vectorlike quarks: BOTH lefthanded and righthanded charged currents J µ+ = J µ+ L + J µ+ R = ū Lγ µ d L + ū R γ µ d R = ūγ µ d = V
9 hat are vectorlike fermions? and where do they appear? The lefthanded and righthanded chiralities of a vectorlike fermion ψ transform in the same way under the SM gauge groups SU(3) c SU(2) L U() Y Vectorlike quarks in many models of New Physics arped or universal extradimensions KK excitations of bulk fields Composite Higgs models VLQ appear as excited resonances of the bounded states which form SM particles Little Higgs models partners of SM fermions in larger group representations which ensure the cancellation of divergent loops Gauged flavour group with low scale gauge flavour bosons required to cancel anomalies in the gauged flavour symmetry Nonminimal SUSY extensions VLQs increase corrections to Higgs mass without affecting EPT
10 SM and a vectorlike quark L M = M ψψ Gauge invariant mass term without the Higgs
11 SM and a vectorlike quark L M = M ψψ Gauge invariant mass term without the Higgs Charged currents both in the left and right sector ψ L ψ R ψ L ψ R
12 SM and a vectorlike quark L M = M ψψ Gauge invariant mass term without the Higgs Charged currents both in the left and right sector ψ L ψ R ψ L ψ R They can mix with SM quarks t u i b d i Dangerous FCNCs strong bounds on mixing parameters BUT Many open channels for production and decay of heavy fermions Rich phenomenology to explore at LHC
13  L dt = 4.3 fb 95% CL exp. excl. 95% CL obs. excl. Ht+X [ATLASCONF238] SameSign [ATLASCONF235] Zb/t+X [ATLASCONF2356] b+x [ATLASCONF236] Searches at the LHC CMS (t ) ATLAS (t )  CMS preliminary s = 8 TeV 9.6 fb BR(b) BR(tZ) BR(tH) Observed T Quark Mass Limit [GeV] BR(T Ht) m T = 35 GeV m T = 5 GeV m T = 7 GeV m T = 4 GeV m T = 55 GeV m T = 75 GeV m T = 45 GeV m T = 6 GeV m T = 8 GeV ATLAS Preliminary Status: LeptonPhoton 23 s = 8 TeV, SU(2) (T,B) doub. SU(2) singlet m T = 65 GeV BR(T b) m T = 85 GeV Bounds from pair production between 6 GeV and 8 GeV depending on the decay channel Common assumption: mixing with third generation only
14 P P b b Example: b pair production t t + b + b Common assumption CC: b t Searches in the samesign dilepton channel (possibly with btagging)
15 P P b b Example: b pair production t t + b + b Common assumption CC: b t Searches in the samesign dilepton channel (possibly with btagging) If the b decays both into t and q P P b b t + jet b + P P b b jet + jet There can be less events in the samesign dilepton channel!
16 Representations and lagrangian terms Assumption: vectorlike quarks couple with SM quarks through Yukawa interactions
17 Representations and lagrangian terms Assumption: vectorlike quarks couple with SM quarks through Yukawa interactions SM Singlets Doublets Triplets ( X ) X ( u ) ( c )( t ) (U) U ( U ) U U d s b (D) D ( D ) D D Y Y SU(2) L 2 and 2 3 U() Y q L = /6 u R = 2/3 d R = /3 2/3 /3 7/6 /65/6 2/3 /3 L Y y i u qi L Hc u i R y i d qi L Vi,j CKM Hdj R λ i u qi L Hc U R λ i d qi L HD R λ i u ψ LH (c) u i R λ i d ψ LH (c) d i R λ i q i L τa H (c) ψ a R
18 Representations and lagrangian terms Assumption: vectorlike quarks couple with SM quarks through Yukawa interactions SM Singlets Doublets Triplets ( X ) X ( u ) ( c )( t ) (t ) t ( t ) t t d s b (b ) b ( b ) b b Y Y SU(2) L 2 and 2 3 U() Y q L = /6 u R = 2/3 d R = /3 L Y yi uv ū i 2 L ui R yi d v di 2 L V i,j CKM dj R 2/3 /3 7/6 /65/6 2/3 /3 λi uv ū i 2 L U R λi d v di 2 L D R λ i uv U 2 L u i R λi d v D 2 L d i R λ iv 2 ū i L U R λ i v d i L D R
19 Representations and lagrangian terms Assumption: vectorlike quarks couple with SM quarks through Yukawa interactions SM Singlets Doublets Triplets ( X ) X ( u ) ( c )( t ) (t ) t ( t ) t t d s b (b ) b ( b ) b b Y Y SU(2) L 2 and 2 3 U() Y q L = /6 u R = 2/3 d R = /3 L Y yi uv ū i 2 L ui R yi d v di 2 L V i,j CKM dj R 2/3 /3 7/6 /65/6 2/3 /3 λi uv ū i 2 L U R λi d v di 2 L D R λ i uv U 2 L u i R λi d v D 2 L d i R λ iv 2 ū i L U R λ i v d i L D R L m M ψψ (gauge invariant since vectorlike) Free parameters 4 4 or 7 M+3 λ i M+3λ i u + 3λ i d 4 M+3 λ i
20 Outline Motivations and Current Status 2 Couplings and constraints 3 Signatures at LHC
21 Flavour changing neutral currents in the SM Couplings Major consequences Z Z H H u t c = u c u R = u R t c L c L and flavour conserving neutral currents receive a contribution
22 Flavour changing neutral currents in the SM Couplings Major consequences Z Z H H u t c = u c u R = u R t c L c L and flavour conserving neutral currents receive a contribution Charged currents between righthanded SM quarks u R t R b R = u R d R d R and charged currents between lefthanded SM quarks receive a contribution
23 Flavour changing neutral currents in the SM Couplings Major consequences Z Z H H u t c = u c u R = u R t c L c L and flavour conserving neutral currents receive a contribution Charged currents between righthanded SM quarks u R t R b R = u R d R d R and charged currents between lefthanded SM quarks receive a contribution All proportional to combinations of mixing parameters
24 FCNC constraints Rare top decays t b b u, c Z t b u, c Z t u, c Z BR(t Zq) = O( 4 ) SM prediction BR(t Zq) < 4% measured at 5 fb Meson mixing and decay D { c u D { c u d i d i d i u} D c D { c u l + { c ν i D l u Z u} D c Z l + l
25 Zc c and Zb b couplings Flavour conserving NC constraints Z c, b c, b Direct coupling measurements: g q ZL,ZR = (gq ZL,ZR )SM (+δg q ZL,ZR ) Asymmetry parameters: A q = (gq ZL )2 (g q ZR )2 (g q ZL )2 +(g q = ASM ZR )2 q (+δa q ) Decay ratios: R q = Γ(Z q q) Γ(Z hadrons) = RSM q (+δr q ) Atomic parity violation Z u, d u, d eak charge of the nucleus Q = 2c ] [(2Z+N)(g u ZL g + gu ZR )+(Z+2N)(gd ZL + gd ZR ) = Q SM + δqvl Most precise test in Cesium 33 Cs: Q ( 33 Cs) exp = 73.2±.35 Q ( 33 Cs) SM = 73.5±.2
26 Constraints from EPT and CKM E precision tests t b Contributions of new fermions to S,T,U parameters CKM measurements Modifications to CKM relevant for singlets and triplets because mixing in the left sector is NOT suppressed The CKM matrix is not unitary anymore If BOTH t and b are present, a CKM for the right sector emerges
27 Higgs coupling with gluons/photons Production and decay of Higgs at the LHC g g q q q H H f f f γ γ New physics contributions mostly affect loops of heavy quarks t and q : κ gg = κ γγ = v g m ht t + v g t m hq q q The couplings of t and q to the higgs boson are: g ht t = m t v + δg ht t g hq q = m q v + δg hq q In the SM: κ gg = κ γγ = The contribution of just one VL quark to the loops turns out to be negligibly small Result confirmed by studies at NNLO
28 Outline Motivations and Current Status 2 Couplings and constraints 3 Signatures at LHC
29 Production channels Vectorlike quarks can be produced in the same way as SM quarks plus FCNCs channels Pair production, dominated by QCD and sentitive to the q mass independently of the representation the q belongs to Single production, only E contributions and sensitive to both the q mass and its mixing parameters
30 Production channels Pair vs single production, example with nonsm doublet (X 5/3 t ) pair production Σ pb. single t single X m q, pair production depends only on the mass of the new particle and decreases faster than single production due to different PDF scaling current bounds from LHC are around the region where (model dependent) single production dominates
31 Decays SM partners Z H Z H t t b b Neutral currents u i + u i t t X 5/3 d i d i + b b Charged currents Y 4/3 d i u i Exotics X 5/3 ui, t + Y 4/3 d i, b Only Charged currents Not all decays may be kinematically allowed it depends on representations and mass differences
32 . Mixing ONLY with top Decays of t BR t t H t Z b Equivalence theorem at large masses: BR(qH) BR(qZ) Decays are in different channels (BR=% hypothesis now relaxed in exp searches) m t
33 Status: LeptonPhoton 23 s = 8 TeV,  L dt = 4.3 fb 95% CL exp. excl. 95% CL obs. excl. Ht+X [ATLASCONF238] SameSign [ATLASCONF235] Zb/t+X [ATLASCONF2356] b+x [ATLASCONF236] SU(2) (T,B) doub. SU(2) singlet Status: LeptonPhoton 23 s = 8 TeV,  L dt = 4.3 fb 95% CL exp. excl. 95% CL obs. excl. SameSign [ATLASCONF235] Zb/t+X [ATLASCONF2356] SU(2) (B,Y) doub. SU(2) singlet. Mixing ONLY with top Decays of t BR t t H t Z. b Equivalence theorem at large masses: BR(qH) BR(qZ) Decays are in different channels (BR=% hypothesis now relaxed in exp searches) Still, current bounds assume mixing with third generation only! m t BR(T Ht) m T = 35 GeV m T = 4 GeV m T = 45 GeV ATLAS Preliminary BR(B Hb) m B = 35 GeV m B = 4 GeV m B = 45 GeV ATLAS Preliminary m T = 5 GeV m T = 55 GeV m T = 6 GeV m T = 65 GeV m B = 5 GeV m B = 55 GeV m B = 6 GeV m B = 65 GeV m T = 7 GeV m T = 75 GeV m T = 8 GeV m T = 85 GeV m B = 7 GeV m B = 75 GeV m B = 8 GeV m B = 85 GeV BR(T b) BR(B t)
34 . Mixing ONLY with top Decays of t BR t t H t Z b m t Equivalence theorem at large masses: BR(qH) BR(qZ) Decays are in different channels (BR=% hypothesis now relaxed in exp searches) Still, current bounds assume mixing with third generation only!. Mixing with top and charm. Mixing ONLY with charm b BR t t H BR t c Z c H t Z c Z c H m t Decay to lighter generations can be sizable even if Yukawas are small! m t
35 Single Production based on arxiv:35.472, accepted by Nucl.Phys.B
36 From couplings to BRs Charged current of T (t ) L κ VL/R 4i g [ T L/R µ + γ µ d i L/R ] 2
37 From couplings to BRs Charged current of T (t ) L κ VL/R 4i g [ T L/R µ + γ µ d i L/R ] 2 Partial idth Γ(T d i ) = κ 2 V4i L/R 2 M3 g 2 64πm 2 Γ (M, m, m di = ) Assumption: massless SM quarks, corrections for decays into top (see )
38 From couplings to BRs Charged current of T (t ) L κ VL/R 4i g [ T L/R µ + γ µ d i L/R ] 2 Partial idth Γ(T d i ) = κ 2 V4i L/R 2 M3 g 2 64πm 2 Γ (M, m, m di = ) Assumption: massless SM quarks, corrections for decays into top (see ) Branching Ratio BR(T d i ) = V4i L/R 2 3 j= V4j L/R 2 κ 2 Γ V =,Z,H κ 2 V Γ V ζ i ξ
39 From couplings to BRs Charged current of T (t ) L κ VL/R 4i g [ T L/R µ + γ µ d i L/R ] 2 Partial idth Γ(T d i ) = κ 2 V4i L/R 2 M3 g 2 64πm 2 Γ (M, m, m di = ) Assumption: massless SM quarks, corrections for decays into top (see ) Branching Ratio BR(T d i ) = V4i L/R 2 3 j= V4j L/R 2 κ 2 Γ V =,Z,H κ 2 V Γ V ζ i ξ Reexpressing the Lagrangian g [ T L/R µ + γ µ d i L/R ] with κ T = 2 L κ T ζ i ξ Γ 3 i= VL/R 4i 2 κv 2 Γ V V
40 The complete Lagrangian L = κ T { ζ i ξ T Γ { ζ i ξ B + κ B Γ { ζ + i κ X Γ { ζ + i κ Y Γ + h.c. g [ T L µ + γµ d i ζ i ξz T L]+ 2 Γ Z g [ B L µ γµ u i ζ i ξz B L]+ 2 Γ Z g 2 [ X L + µ γ µ u i L] } } g [Ȳ L µ γ µ d i L] 2 g [ T L Z µ γ µ u i 2c L] g [ B L Z µ γ µ d i 2c L] ζ i ξh T Γ H M v [ T R Hu i ζ 3 ξh T L] Γ H } ζ i ξh B M Γ v [ B R Hd i L] H Model implemented and validated in Feynrules: m t v [ T L Ht R ] } 3 ζ i = i= ξ V = V=,Z,H T and B: NC+CC, 4 parameters each (ζ,2 and ξ,z ) X and Y: only CC, 2 parameters each (ζ,2 )
41 In association with top Cross sections (example with T) ( ) d i σ(t t) = κt 2 ξ Z ζ 3 σ Z3 T t 3 + ξ ζ i σ i T t i= d j In association with light quark T t q i q j Z T t σ(tj) = κ 2 T ( 3 ξ ζ i σ Tjet 3 i + ξ Z ζ i σ Tjet Zi i= i= ) q i q j T, Z q j q i q j Z T q k In association with gauge or Higgs boson ( σ(t{, Z, H}) = κ 2 T 3 ξ ζ i σ T 3 i + ξ Z ζ i σ TZ 3 i + ξ H ζ i σ i TH i= i= i= ) g q q T, Z g q T T, Z g u i u i T H g u i T T H The σ are modelindependent coefficients: the modeldependency is factorised!
42 Cross sections Coefficients (in fb) for T and T with mass 6 GeV σ T t+ Tt Zi with top with light quark with gauge or Higgs σ T t+ Tt i σ Tj+ Tj Zi σ Tj+ Tj i σ TZ+ TZ i σ TH+ TH i σ T+ T i ζ = ζ 2 = ζ 3 = The cross section for pair production is 7 fb
43 Cross sections Embed the modeldependency into a consistent framework Benchmark Benchmark 2 Benchmark 3 Benchmark 4 Benchmark 5 Benchmark 6 κ =.2 κ =.7 κ = κ =.3 κ =. κ =.3 ζ = ζ 2 = /3 ζ = ζ 2 = ζ 3 = ζ = ζ 3 = /2 ζ 2 = ζ 3 = /2 (, 2/3) T (, /3) B (2, /6) T λ d = B (2, /6) T λu = B (2, /6) T λ d = λu B (2, 7/6) X T (2, 5/6) B Y (3, 2/3) X T B (3, /3) T B Y Flavour bounds are necessary to get the inclusive cross sections
44 Flavour vs direct search ATLAS search in the CC and NC channels Qq) BR(Q q) [pb] MadGraph, Dquark MadGraph, X quark 95% C.L. upper limits: Observed Expected ±σ ±2σ Qq) BR(Q Zq) [pb] MadGraph, Uquark 95% C.L. upper limits: Observed Expected ±σ ±2σ σ(pp  σ(pp  2 s = 7 TeV  Ldt = 4.64 fb ATLAS Preliminary 2 s = 7 TeV  Ldt = 4.64 fb ATLAS Preliminary m [GeV] Q m [GeV] Q Assumptions: mixing only with st generation and coupling strength κ = v M VL
45 Flavour vs direct search Comparison with flavour bounds.3 Doublet X T.3 Triplet X T B 5 ATLAS NC 5 Κ.5 Κ.5 ATLAS NC. ATLAS CC. Flavour bound.5 Flavour bound.5 ATLAS CC M GeV M GeV Assumptions: mixing only with st generation and coupling strength saturating flavour bounds Flavour bounds are competitive with current direct searches
46 Conclusions and Outlook After Higgs discovery, Vectorlike quarks are a very promising playground for searches of new physics Fairly rich phenomenology at the LHC and many possibile channels to explore Signatures of single and pair production of VL quarks are accessible at current CM energy and luminosity and have been explored to some extent Current bounds on masses around 68 GeV, but searches are not fully optimized for general scenarios. Modelindependent studies can be performed for pair and single production, and also to analyse scenarios with multiple vectorlike quarks (work in progress, results very soon!)
A SUSY SO(10) GUT with 2 Intermediate Scales
A SUSY SO(10) GUT with 2 Intermediate Scales Manuel Drees Bonn University & Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics SUSY SO(10) p. 1/25 Contents 1 Motivation: SO(10), intermediate scales SUSY SO(10) p. 2/25
More informationAbout the Author. journals as Physics Letters, Nuclear Physics and The Physical Review.
About the Author Dr. John Hagelin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Doctoral Program in Physics at Maharishi International University. Dr. Hagelin received his A.B. Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth
More informationThe Reasons for this Symposium on Past, Present and Future of Subnuclear Physics
Subnuclear Physics: Past, Present and Future Pontifical Academy Sciences, Scripta Varia 119, Vatican City 2014 www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv119/sv119zichichi.pdf The Reasons for this Symposium
More informationSubspace Pursuit for Compressive Sensing: Closing the Gap Between Performance and Complexity
Subspace Pursuit for Compressive Sensing: Closing the Gap Between Performance and Complexity Wei Dai and Olgica Milenkovic Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign
More informationRandom matchings which induce Hamilton cycles, and hamiltonian decompositions of random regular graphs
Random matchings which induce Hamilton cycles, and hamiltonian decompositions of random regular graphs Jeong Han Kim Microsoft Research One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 9805 USA jehkim@microsoft.com Nicholas
More information7 Twodimensional NMR
7 Twodimensional NMR 7. Introduction The basic ideas of twodimensional NMR will be introduced by reference to the appearance of a COSY spectrum; later in this chapter the product operator formalism will
More informationNot Seeing is Also Believing: Combining Object and Metric Spatial Information
Not Seeing is Also Believing: Combining Object and Metric Spatial Information Lawson L.S. Wong, Leslie Pack Kaelbling, and Tomás LozanoPérez Abstract Spatial representations are fundamental to mobile
More informationSteering User Behavior with Badges
Steering User Behavior with Badges Ashton Anderson Daniel Huttenlocher Jon Kleinberg Jure Leskovec Stanford University Cornell University Cornell University Stanford University ashton@cs.stanford.edu {dph,
More informationHow and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement? C h a r l e s T. Clotfelter
How and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement? C h a r l e s T. Clotfelter H e l e n F. Ladd J a c o b L. Vigdor w o r k i n g p a p e r 2 m a r c h 2 0 0 7 How and why do teacher credentials
More informationIf You re So Smart, Why Aren t You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets
If You re So Smart, Why Aren t You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets Lawrence Blume and David Easley Department of Economics Cornell University July 2002 Today: June 24, 2004 The
More information1 OneDimensional Magnetism
1 OneDimensional Magnetism HansJürgen Mikeska 1 and Alexei K. Kolezhuk 1,2 1 Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hannover, Appelstaße 2, 30167 Hannover, Germany, mikeska@itp.unihannover.de
More informationPanel Unit Root Tests in the Presence of CrossSectional Dependency and Heterogeneity 1
Panel Unit Root Tests in the Presence of CrossSectional Dependency and Heterogeneity 1 Yoosoon Chang and Wonho Song Department of Economics Rice University Abstract An IV approach, using as instruments
More informationUnderstanding the FiniteDifference TimeDomain Method. John B. Schneider
Understanding the FiniteDifference TimeDomain Method John B. Schneider June, 015 ii Contents 1 Numeric Artifacts 7 1.1 Introduction...................................... 7 1. Finite Precision....................................
More informationRECENTLY, there has been a great deal of interest in
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 47, NO. 1, JANUARY 1999 187 An Affine Scaling Methodology for Best Basis Selection Bhaskar D. Rao, Senior Member, IEEE, Kenneth KreutzDelgado, Senior Member,
More informationWhich Free Lunch Would You Like Today, Sir?: Delta Hedging, Volatility Arbitrage and Optimal Portfolios
Which Free Lunch Would You Like Today, Sir?: Delta Hedging, Volatility Arbitrage and Optimal Portfolios Riaz Ahmad Course Director for CQF, 7city, London Paul Wilmott Wilmott Associates, London Abstract:
More informationHave Financial Markets Become More Informative?
Have Financial Markets Become More Informative? Jennie Bai, Thomas Philippon, and Alexi Savov April 2014 Abstract The finance industry has grown, financial markets have become more liquid, and information
More informationWhen Moderation Is Mediated and Mediation Is Moderated
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 89, No. 6, 852 863 00223514/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/00223514.89.6.852 When Moderation Is
More informationGreat Minds Think Alike, and Fools Seldom Differ: A Theory on the Moments of Firms' Performance Distributions.
Paper to be presented at the DRUID Academy 2012 on January 1921 at University of Cambridge /The Moeller Centre Great Minds Think Alike, and Fools Seldom Differ: A Theory on the Moments of Firms' Performance
More informationChapter 10 Electronic Wavefunctions Must Also Possess Proper Symmetry. These Include Angular Momentum and Point Group Symmetries
Chapter 10 Electronic Wavefunctions Must Also Possess Proper Symmetry. These Include Angular Momentum and Point Group Symmetries I. Angular Momentum Symmetry and Strategies for Angular Momentum Coupling
More informationIf Technology has Arrived Everywhere, why Has Income Diverged?
If Technology has Arrived Everywhere, why Has Income Diverged? Diego Comin Harvard University and NBER Martí Mestieri Toulouse School of Economics May 1, 2014 Abstract We study the crosscountry evolution
More informationA Molecular Dynamics Study of Slow Base Flipping in DNA using Conformational Flooding
770 Biophysical Journal Volume 93 August 2007 770 786 A Molecular Dynamics Study of Slow Base Flipping in DNA using Conformational Flooding Benjamin Bouvier and Helmut Grubmüller Theoretical and Computational
More informationBreakdown of Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium...
II Stellar Atmospheres Copyright (2003) George W. Collins, II 15 Breakdown of Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium... Thus far we have made considerable use of the concepts of equilibrium. In the stellar interior,
More informationA Principled Approach to Bridging the Gap between Graph Data and their Schemas
A Principled Approach to Bridging the Gap between Graph Data and their Schemas Marcelo Arenas,2, Gonzalo Díaz, Achille Fokoue 3, Anastasios Kementsietsidis 3, Kavitha Srinivas 3 Pontificia Universidad
More informationHave Financial Markets Become More Informative?
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports Have Financial Markets Become More Informative? Jennie Bai Thomas Philippon Alexi Savov Staff Report No. 578 October 2012 FRBNY Staff REPORTS This paper presents
More informationON THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPACINGS BETWEEN ZEROS OF THE ZETA FUNCTION. A. M. Odlyzko AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey ABSTRACT
ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPACINGS BETWEEN ZEROS OF THE ZETA FUNCTION A. M. Odlyzko AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey ABSTRACT A numerical study of the distribution of spacings between zeros
More informationWas This Review Helpful to You? It Depends! Context and Voting Patterns in Online Content
Was This Review Helpful to You? It Depends! Context and Voting Patterns in Online Content Ruben Sipos Dept. of Computer Science Cornell University Ithaca, NY rs@cs.cornell.edu Arpita Ghosh Dept. of Information
More informationSemiSimple Lie Algebras and Their Representations
i SemiSimple Lie Algebras and Their Representations Robert N. Cahn Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory University of California Berkeley, California 1984 THE BENJAMIN/CUMMINGS PUBLISHING COMPANY Advanced Book
More informationNCSS Statistical Software
Chapter 06 Introduction This procedure provides several reports for the comparison of two distributions, including confidence intervals for the difference in means, twosample ttests, the ztest, the
More informationThe Scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom
E. Rutherford, Philos. Mag, 6, 21 1911 The Scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom E. Rutherford University of Manchester 1 (Received April 1911) 1 It is well known that
More informationTHE PROBLEM OF finding localized energy solutions
600 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 45, NO. 3, MARCH 1997 Sparse Signal Reconstruction from Limited Data Using FOCUSS: A Reweighted Minimum Norm Algorithm Irina F. Gorodnitsky, Member, IEEE,
More information