id
int64 1
546k
| paper_arxiv_id
stringlengths 10
13
| path
stringlengths 1
249
⌀ | caption
stringlengths 9
170k
⌀ | label
stringlengths 6
192
⌀ | name
float64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
199
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-afhq-flowdps.png
|
\caption{FlowDPS}
| null | null |
200
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-afhq-dflow.png
|
\caption{D-Flow}
| null | null |
201
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-afhq-fmplug-w.png
|
\caption{FMPlug-W}
| null | null |
202
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-afhq-fmplug-w-r.png
|
\caption{FMPlug-W-R}
| null | null |
203
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-measurement.png
|
\caption{Measurement}
| null | null |
204
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-gt.png
|
\caption{Ground Truth}
| null | null |
205
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-dip.png
|
\caption{DIP}
| null | null |
206
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-flowchef.png
|
\caption{FlowChef}
| null | null |
207
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-flowdps.png
|
\caption{FlowDPS}
| null | null |
208
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-dflow.png
|
\caption{D-Flow}
| null | null |
209
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-fmplug-w.png
|
\caption{FMPlug-W}
| null | null |
210
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-fmplug-r.png
|
\caption{FMPlug-W-R}
| null | null |
211
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-measurement.png
|
\caption{Measurement}
| null | null |
212
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-gt.png
|
\caption{Ground Truth}
| null | null |
213
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-dip.png
|
\caption{DIP}
| null | null |
214
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-flowchef.png
|
\caption{FlowChef}
| null | null |
215
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-flowdps.png
|
\caption{FlowDPS}
| null | null |
216
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-dflow.png
|
\caption{D-Flow}
| null | null |
217
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-fmplug-w.png
|
\caption{FMPlug-W}
| null | null |
218
|
2508.00721
|
fig/visualization/gd-div-fmplug-r.png
|
\caption{FMPlug-W-R}
| null | null |
219
|
2508.00700
|
images/architecture_server.pdf
|
\caption{Overview of the experimentation architecture.}
|
\label{fig:architecture}
| null |
220
|
2508.00700
|
images/ResearchMethodOverview-llmq-workflow.drawio.pdf
|
\caption{Overview of the experimentation workflow.}
|
\label{fig:method}
| null |
221
|
2508.00700
|
images/questionSolution.jpg
|
\caption{Question (Problem) and Answer (Solution).}
|
\label{fig:questionAnswer}
| null |
222
|
2508.00700
|
images/count_issues.png
|
\caption{Normalized issue \% per dataset. }
|
\label{fig:count_issue}
| null |
223
|
2508.00700
|
images/newFigure5_all.pdf
|
\caption{Normalized issues per dataset. }
|
\label{fig:severity_distribution}
| null |
224
|
2508.00700
|
images/effort_min.png
|
\caption{Average Effort in Minutes to Fix Bug or Code Smell.}
|
\label{fig:effort_average}
| null |
409
|
2508.00380
|
figs/vis/vis_toy_main_1-2.pdf
| null | null | null |
225
|
2508.00288
|
fig1_uav-on_outline.pdf
|
\caption{
Task definition in the UAV-ON benchmark. The aerial agent receives a semantic instruction and is required to navigate in a 3D environment to locate the described target.
}
|
\label{fig:overview}
| null |
226
|
2508.00288
|
fig2_prompt_statistics.pdf
|
\caption{Statistics of target semantic information. (a) Word cloud of object category names. (b) Word cloud of descriptive attributes. (c) Distribution of target object sizes.}
|
\label{fig:wordcloud}
| null |
227
|
2508.00288
|
fig3_onair_outline.pdf
|
\caption{System overview of the Aerial ObjectNav Agent (AOA). Multi-view RGB-D observations, target information, and pose history are encoded into a structured input and processed by LLM to predict UAV actions.}
|
\label{fig:baseline}
| null |
228
|
2508.00288
|
apdx1_scene_object_prompt.pdf
|
\caption{ (a) Task prompt used for scene-object co-occurrence inference. (b) Co-occurrence mapping visualized as a Sankey diagram linking scenes to likely object categories.}
|
\label{fig:scene_object}
| null |
229
|
2508.00288
|
apdx2_gpt_description.pdf
|
\caption{Illustration of the object prompt generation process. Multi-view images are used to generate an instance-level object prompt via GPT-based object description and size estimation.}
|
\label{fig:gpt_description}
| null |
230
|
2508.00288
|
apdx3_max_move_count.pdf
|
\caption{Geometric basis for determining the maximum exploration step limit.
(a) Visualization of the UAV’s downward-facing FOV at 5 meters altitude;
(b) Grid-based search region constrained within a 50-unit radius circle centered at the initialization point;
(c) Zig-zag traversal policy covering all 88 valid grid cells.}
|
\label{fig:move_count}
| null |
231
|
2508.00288
|
apdx4_method_trajectories.pdf
|
\caption{Representative 3D trajectories of four baseline methods across three outcome types: \textit{Failure/Collision} (top row), \textit{Oracle Success} (middle row), and \textit{Success} (bottom row). Methods include: (a) Random, (b) CLIP-H, (c) AOA-V, and (d) AOA-F. All examples are drawn from the same scene (\textit{BrushifyUrban}) for comparability.}
|
\label{fig:baseline_trajectories}
| null |
232
|
2508.00668
|
generalizedCM.jpg
|
\caption{Generalized conjecture map for educational design research (Sandoval, 2014)}
|
\label{fig:conjecture}
| null |
233
|
2508.00668
|
conjecture_initial.jpg
|
\caption{Initial conjecture map of a design to promote argumentation in elementary
science (Sandoval, 2014)}
|
\label{fig:conjecture2}
| null |
234
|
2508.00725
|
Scalar_EFT.pdf
|
\caption{SN~1987A cooling constraints for scalar (left) and vector (right) interactions compared to DD searches by PANDA4T-X and prospects from DARWIN. The dotted
line covers the estimated uncertainty from using different SN models. Other upper bounds include cosmological overproduction (see text and SupM for details) and those from ID derived in Ref.~\cite{Ge:2022ius}.
\label{fig:money}}
| null | null |
235
|
2508.00725
|
Scalar_light.pdf
|
\caption{Bounds on the DD cross-section for the absorption of DM with $m_\chi=20$ keV and sub-GeV scalar mediator. For $y_e=y_\chi$, the SN~1987A limits from SFHo18.80 are compared to the limit from DM overproduction
%using the same interaction
and sensitivity limits achieved by PANDAX-4T and the prospects for DARWIN. We also show the SN~1987A bound obtained using $y_\chi=10^5 y_e$ or vice-versa. For such hierarchical couplings the overproduction bound would only get stronger.
}
|
\label{fig:light_scalar}
| null |
236
|
2508.00725
|
ScalarR_EFT.pdf
|
\caption{SN~1987A cooling bound for scalar (left) and vector (right) interactions and sterile neutrinos. See caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:money}.
\label{fig:moneyR}}
| null | null |
237
|
2508.00725
|
light_vectorR.pdf
|
\caption{Bounds on the DD cross-section for the absorption of DM with $m_\chi=100$ keV, a sub-GeV vector mediator and a sterile neutrino. See caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:light_scalar}.
}
|
\label{fig:light_vector}
| null |
238
|
2508.00587
|
figures/colorbar.pdf
| null | null | null |
239
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser.png
| null | null | null |
240
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser2.png
| null | null | null |
241
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser3.png
| null | null | null |
242
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser5.png
| null | null | null |
243
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser8.png
| null | null | null |
244
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser6.png
| null | null | null |
245
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser7.png
| null | null | null |
246
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser4.png
| null | null | null |
247
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser.png
| null | null | null |
248
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser2.png
| null | null | null |
249
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser3.png
| null | null | null |
250
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser5.png
| null | null | null |
251
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser8.png
| null | null | null |
252
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser6.png
| null | null | null |
253
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser7.png
| null | null | null |
254
|
2508.00587
|
figures/teaser4.png
| null | null | null |
255
|
2508.00587
|
figures/combined.pdf
|
\caption{\textbf{Visualisation of univariate Gaussian classification.} \textbf{Top:} Comparison between an evidential classifier (EDL) and a standard binary classifier trained with binary cross-entropy (BCE), with corresponding uncertainty measures, vacuity and entropy, respectively. Shaded blue area indicates the training data density. \textbf{Bottom:} Predicted Dirichlet distributions $\text{Dir}(p|\boldsymbol{\alpha})$ at $x \in \{-6, -0.4, 0, 0.4, 6 \}$. The vertical dashed lines indicate the mean probability $p_{\theta}^{\text{EDL}}(y^{\text{out}}=1|x)$.}
|
\label{fig:exp:univariate_gaussian}
| null |
256
|
2508.00587
|
figures/layer_ablation_study.pdf
|
\caption{\textbf{DINOv2 layer ablation study.} Comparison of models trained using features from different layers $l \in \{1, 6, 12, 16, 21, 24\}$ of DINOv2. Performance is reported in terms of average precision ($\uparrow$) and false positive rate ($\downarrow$) on the SMIYC Anomaly Track validation set.}
|
\label{fig:exp:ablation_study}
| null |
257
|
2508.00587
|
figures/Static_min_dist.pdf
|
\caption{\textbf{Visualisation of overconfident extrapolation.} Comparison between an evidential classifier (EDL) and a standard binary classifier (BCE) on the Fishyscapes Static dataset. The plot shows the average probability $\bar{p}_{\theta}(y^{\text{out}}=1|\mathbf{x}_i)$ over the cosine distance $d_{\mathrm{cos}}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_k, \mathbf{x}_i)$ between a feature vector $\mathbf{x}_i$ and the nearest class mean feature vector $\boldsymbol{\mu}_k$ from the training set. For reference, shaded blue and red areas indicate the density of distances for \gls{id} and \gls{ood} features, respectively.}
|
\label{fig:exp:overconfidence}
| null |
258
|
2508.00607
|
Figures/Figure1.eps
|
\caption{Five-level system at Raman resonance ($\delta\omega=6B_X$): On the left, energy levels in the rotating wave frame with couplings from lasers $L_1$ (blue) and $L_2$ (pink). On the right, dressed energy levels after diagonalizing the asymptotic Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:H5States-2}. Horizontal dashed lines mark the energy origin in both panels.}
|
\label{fig:5-level-system}
| null |
259
|
2508.00607
|
Figures/Figure2.eps
|
\caption{Dressed potential-energy curves for $\Omega_1 = 2\pi\times 50$~MHz, $\Omega_2 = 2\pi\times 200$~MHz, $\Delta = 2\pi\times 1$~GHz. Each panel corresponds to a different energy scale, with progressive zoom-ins from the upper to the lower panel.}
|
\label{dressed_PECs}
| null |
410
|
2508.00380
|
figs/vis/vis_toy_main_1-3.pdf
| null | null | null |
260
|
2508.00607
|
Figures/Figure3.eps
|
\caption{Adiabatic elimination: dressed PECs calculated by diagonalizing the full Hamiltonian (Eq.(\ref{H_total}), solid black lines), and the effective Hamiltonian (Eq. \ref{effective_hamiltonian_5level_sys}, in dashed red lines), for laser parameters $\Omega_1 = 2\pi\times 50$~MHz, $\Omega_2 = 2\pi\times 200$~MHz, and $\Delta = 2\pi\times 1$~GHz. The upper panel shows the PECs on a scale of 1400~MHz including the excited state manifold, and the lower panel shows a zoom-in on a scale of 11~MHz around the zero energy.
\label{adiab_elimination_fig}
}
| null | null |
261
|
2508.00607
|
Figures/Figure4.eps
|
\caption{Invalid adiabatic elimination: same as Figure \ref{adiab_elimination_fig}, but for $\Delta = 2\pi\times 300$~MHz.
\label{adiab_not_elim}
}
| null | null |
262
|
2508.00607
|
Figures/Figure5.eps
|
\caption{Dressed PECs in the energy range of the entrance channel (marked with a red arrow) for $\Omega_1 = 2\pi\times 50$~MHz, $\Omega_2 = 2\pi\times 200$~MHz, and $\Delta = 2\pi\times 1$~GHz at Raman resonance ($\hbar \delta\omega = 6B_X$). The main components of each channel are listed on the right, with colors corresponding to $(|m_1|, |m_2|)$ subspaces: red for $(0,0)$, yellow for $(0,1)$, green for $(0,2)$, blue for $(1,1)$ and $(1,2)$, and purple for $(2,2)$ (see Appendix for a detailed discussion).}
|
\label{entrance_states_figure}
| null |
263
|
2508.00607
|
Figures/Figure6.eps
|
\caption{Collision rate coefficients (in cm$^3$/s) of two ultracold $^{23}$Na$^{39}$K molecules exposed to two lasers, as function of their Rabi frequencies $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ for a detuning $\Delta = 2\pi\times 1$~GHz, at the Raman resonance ($\delta\omega = 0$), and for a temperature of $T=300$~nK: (a) elastic, (b) inelastic and (c) reactive rates.}
|
\label{fig:rates2-os}
| null |
264
|
2508.00607
|
Figures/Figure7.eps
|
\caption{The coupling scheme of two molecules exposed to two linearly polarized $\pi$ laser fields. Solid red arrows represent the five-level coupling scheme in the $(|m_1|,|m_2|)=(0,0)$ subspace. Solid yellow arrows represent the four-level scheme in the $(|m_1|,|m_2|)=(0,1)$ subspace. Solid green arrows represent the three-level system, and a single solid yellow arrow represents a two-level scheme in the $(|m_1|,|m_2|)=(0,2)$ subspace. Solid blue arrows represent the two-level schemes in the $(|m_1|,|m_2|)=(1,1)$ and $(|m_1|,|m_2|)=(1,2)$ subspaces. The purple dot corresponds to the state that is not coupled to lasers in the $(|m_1|,|m_2|)=(2,2)$ subspace.}
|
\label{full_level_scheme_compact}
| null |
265
|
2508.00607
|
Figures/Figure8.eps
|
\caption{The six coupling schemes for the different $(|m_1|+|m_2|)$ values in the rotating wave frame in the case of two linearly polarized lasers ($\Delta m_1=0$, $\Delta m_2=0$). The inner five rectangles of each panel correspond to the different $j_1+j_2$ values. The arrows represent the laser couplings between the different $(|m_1|,|m_2|)$ levels. Panels a, b, c, d, e, and f represent the five-, four-, three-level systems, single field coupling, and the uncoupled state, respectively.}
|
\label{full_level_scheme}
| null |
266
|
2508.05616v1
|
old_figures/catchy_figure4.pdf
|
\caption{Motivation for our \our{} framework. Traditional manual heuristic design (left) relies on human expertise and trial-and-error processes. Deep learning approaches (center) produce more accurate predictions but demand substantial computational resources, yield black-box models, and often struggle with generalization. \our{} (right) automates the heuristic design process using evolutionary algorithms, enabling the generation of novel and effective trajectory prediction heuristics.}
|
\label{fig:motivation}
| null |
267
|
2508.05616v1
|
new_figures/overview.pdf
|
\caption{An illustration of the \our{} evolutionary process. \textbf{(Left)} The framework continuously discovers and evaluates a variety of heuristic strategies, such as those based on constant velocity or social forces. \textbf{(Middle)} As the evolution progresses, the performance of these heuristics steadily improves, evidenced by the decreasing objective value from a simple seed to a final, optimized solution. \textbf{(Right)} The overall \our{} pipeline orchestrates this entire discovery and optimization process, using an LLM-driven evolutionary algorithm to automatically generate and refine the heuristics.}
|
\label{fig:trajevo-catchy}
| null |
268
|
2508.05616v1
|
new_figures/cges.pdf
|
\caption{Cross-Generation Elite Sampling (CGES) helps escape local optima by sampling elite individuals from past generations (left), which greatly helps achieve much better objective values (right).}
|
\label{fig:cross-generation-elite-sampling}
| null |
269
|
2508.05616v1
|
old_figures/f1-cropped.pdf
| null |
\label{fig:stats_analysis}
| null |
270
|
2508.05616v1
|
old_figures/f2-cropped.pdf
| null |
\label{fig:stats_refinement}
| null |
271
|
2508.05616v1
|
old_figures/f1-cropped.pdf
| null |
\label{fig:stats_analysis}
| null |
272
|
2508.05616v1
|
old_figures/f2-cropped.pdf
| null |
\label{fig:stats_refinement}
| null |
273
|
2508.05616v1
|
old_figures/final_with_legend_aaai.pdf
|
\caption{Trajectory prediction results for CVM-S \citep{scholler2020constant} and \our{} across different datasets. Each row illustrates a distinct pattern: (top) linear trajectories, (middle) non-linear trajectories, and (bottom) collision-avoidance cases.
We visualize the single best trajectory out of $K=20$ samples based on the optimization objective.}
|
\label{fig:generated-trajectories-image}
| null |
274
|
2508.05616v1
|
old_figures/main_figure.pdf
|
\caption{A qualitative illustration of the \our{} evolutionary process. The optimization begins with a simple seed heuristic and iteratively discovers more complex and effective strategies by exploring different concepts like acceleration with noise, social repulsion, and weighted velocity averaging. The process converges on a final, highly-optimized heuristic that combines multiple discovered strategies, achieving a significantly lower objective value.}
|
\label{fig:appendix_evo_example}
| null |
275
|
2508.05616v1
|
new_figures/performance_curve.pdf
|
\caption{Performance sensitivity to the exploration ratio for crossover parent selection. The x-axis represents the proportion of parents selected uniformly at random (exploration), while the y-axis shows the resulting MSE score (lower is better). The optimal performance is achieved at an exploration ratio of 0.7, effectively balancing exploration and exploitation.}
|
\label{fig:exploration_ratio}
| null |
276
|
2508.05616v1
|
new_figures/evolution_resources_comparison.pdf
|
\caption{
\textbf{Evolution Resources Comparison.}
Compared to SOTA neural network methods, \our{} shows a significant advantage in both evolution time and cost (e.g., 5 minutes vs. 1 day, ~$0.05 vs. ~$4.00). Both metrics are displayed on a logarithmic scale.
}
|
\label{fig:evo_resources}
| null |
277
|
2508.05616v1
|
new_figures/inference_resources_comparison.pdf
|
\caption{
\textbf{Inference Resources Comparison.}
\our{} achieves a fast 0.65ms inference time on a single CPU core, while baseline methods require more time even on a GPU. All times are displayed on a logarithmic scale.
}
|
\label{fig:inf_resources}
| null |
278
|
2508.05616v1
|
old_figures/selection_ablation.pdf
|
\caption{Visual comparison of the evolutionary process with and without CGES. The plot shows the objective value (lower is better) over the number of function evaluations, averaged over multiple runs. The \our{} framework with CGES consistently converges to better solutions than the ablated version, highlighting the effectiveness of CGES in improving the search process.}
|
\label{fig:cges_ablation_appendix}
| null |
279
|
2508.00466
|
H_rare_decays_cartoon.png
|
\caption{Schematic diagrams of rare and exclusive two- and three-body decays of the Higgs boson into (i) two or three gauge bosons (V = Z, W, $\gamma$) or into a gauge boson plus a neutrino pair $(\nunubar$) through virtual loops (grey circle) (ii) a gauge boson %(mostly a photon)
plus a difermion bound state (meson or leptonium), and (iii) two onium states.\label{fig:rare_decays_diags}}
| null | null |
280
|
2508.00466
|
rare_H_2_3_4body_decays.png
|
\caption{Representative diagrams of rare 2-, 3-, and 4-body decays of the H boson into photons and/or neutrinos, and into Z bosons plus gluons or photons.}
|
\label{fig:H_rare}
| null |
281
|
2508.00466
|
plots/H_3_4body_rare_decays.pdf
|
\caption{Theoretical branching fractions of the Higgs boson into rare two-, three-, or four- gauge bosons and/or neutrinos shown as a function of the Higgs boson mass (left) and as blue bars in negative log scale (right). In the left panel, the dashed lines for $m_\mathrm{H}<m_\mathrm{Z}$ show the $\rm H \to Z^*gg,\,Z^*\gaga$ decays with offshell Z bosons. In the right panel, the red vertical line indicates the minimum $\BR$ value reachable at the HL-LHC given just by the total number of H bosons expected to be produced.
\label{fig:H_rare_BR}}
| null | null |
282
|
2508.00466
|
excl_H_decays_gamma_meson_diags.png
|
\caption{Schematic diagrams of exclusive decays of the H boson into a meson plus a gauge boson in direct (left), indirect (center), and W-loop (right) processes. The solid fermion lines represent quarks, and the gray blob represents the mesonic bound state.}
|
\label{fig:H_gauge_meson_diags}
| null |
283
|
2508.00466
|
plots/H_gamma_meson_limits.pdf
|
\caption{Branching ratios (in negative log scale) of exclusive $\rm H \to \gamma +vector$-meson decays. Most recent theoretical predictions (blue bars) compared to current experimental limits (violet) and expected conservative HL-LHC bounds (orange). The red vertical line indicates the minimum $\BR$ value reachable at the HL-LHC given just by the total number of H bosons expected to be produced.
}
|
\label{fig:H_gamma_meson_limits}
| null |
284
|
2508.00466
|
plots/H_Z_meson_limits.pdf
|
\caption{Branching ratios (in negative log scale) of exclusive $\rm H \to Z\,+\, meson$ decays. The most recent theoretical predictions (blue bars) are compared to current experimental limits (violet) and conservatively expected HL-LHC bounds (orange). The red vertical line indicates the minimum $\BR$ value reachable at the HL-LHC given just by the total number of H bosons expected to be produced.}
|
\label{fig:H_Z_meson_limits}
| null |
285
|
2508.00466
|
Higgs_FCNC_cartoon1.png
|
\caption{Left: Schematic diagram of exclusive flavour-changing Higgs decays into a meson plus a photon or a Z boson. %, $\rm H \to \gamma+M,\,Z+M$.
The solid fermion lines represent quarks, the wavy ones bosons, and the gray blob a neutral meson.
Right: Branching fractions (in negative log scale) of exclusive $\rm H\to\gamma+VM^*,\,Z+VM^*$ decays, where $\rm VM^*$ are excited flavoured neutral mesons. The SM predictions (blue bars) from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:BR_H_gamma_m}) and (\ref{eq:BR_H_Z_m}) are compared with current experimental limits (violet) and expected conservative HL-LHC bounds (orange). The red vertical line indicates the minimum $\BR$ value reachable at the HL-LHC given just by the total number of H bosons expected to be produced.}
|
\label{fig:H_boson_flavouredmeson_limits}
| null |
286
|
2508.00466
|
plots/H_W_meson_limits.pdf
|
\caption{Theoretical branching fractions (blue bars, in negative log scale) of exclusive $\rm H \to W^{\pm} + meson$ decays. No experimental limits exist to date. The red vertical line indicates the minimum $\BR$ value reachable at the HL-LHC given just by the total number of H bosons expected to be produced.}
|
\label{fig:H_W_meson_limits}
| null |
287
|
2508.00466
|
excl_H_decays_gamma_leptonium_diags.png
|
\caption{Schematic diagrams of exclusive H boson decays into a photon or a Z boson plus a leptonium state in the direct (left) and indirect (right) channels. The solid fermion lines represent leptons, the gray blob represents the $(\lele)$ bound state.}
|
\label{fig:H_leptonium_diags}
| null |
288
|
2508.00466
|
plots/H_boson_leptonium_limits.pdf
|
\caption{Theoretical branching fractions (blue bars, in negative log scale) of exclusive $\rm H \to \gamma,Z + leptonium$ decays. No experimental limits exist to date. The red vertical line indicates the minimum $\BR$ value reachable at the HL-LHC given just by the total number of H bosons expected to be produced.}
|
\label{fig:H_boson_leptonium_limits}
| null |
289
|
2508.00466
|
excl_H_decays_meson_meson_diags.png
|
\caption{Schematic diagrams of exclusive decays of the H boson into two mesons. The wavy lines indicate gauge bosons, the solid fermion lines represent quarks and the gray blobs are the meson bound states.}
|
\label{fig:H_2meson_diags}
| null |
290
|
2508.00466
|
plots/H_meson_meson_limits.pdf
|
\caption{Branching ratios (in negative log scale) of exclusive $\rm H \to meson + meson$ decays. Most recent theoretical predictions (blue bars) are compared to current experimental limits (violet) and expected conservative HL-LHC bounds (orange). The red vertical line indicates the minimum $\BR$ value reachable at the HL-LHC given just by the total number of H bosons expected to be produced.}
|
\label{fig:H_2meson_limits}
| null |
291
|
2508.00667
|
sel_eff_0511.png
|
\caption{Distribution of the selected ICGs in the $L_\mathrm{c},L_\mathrm{gap}$ plane, where $L_\mathrm{c}$ represents the luminosity of the ICG and $L_\mathrm{gap}$ denotes the luminosity ratio between the ICG and its brightest satellite galaxy (or the SBG of the system). The color bar indicates the probability density of ICGs. Brown dash-dotted lines show the boundaries above which the SBGs are too faint to be observed at the corresponding redshift as labelled. Black dashed lines mark the boundaries of the eight $L_\mathrm{c},L_\mathrm{gap}$ bins used for stacked lensing analysis.}
|
\label{fig:sel_eff}
| null |
292
|
2508.00667
|
obs_z_dist.png
|
\caption{The redshift distribution of the observed ICG sample. The hatched region indicates that ICGs with $z\leq 0.03$ are removed from the lens sample for higher lensing efficiency.}
|
\label{fig:obs_z_dist}
| null |
293
|
2508.00667
|
ESD_obs_bestfit_0624.png
|
\caption{The measured lensing ESD profiles centered on ICGs in different bins of $L_\mathrm{c}$ (see the text in each panel) and $L_\mathrm{gap}$ (different color symbols in the same panel, see the legend). The bins are defined in Figure~\ref{fig:sel_eff}. The $x$-axis is the projected physical radius to the ICG. The symbols and associated errorbars show the estimated ESDs with the PDF-SYM method and their $1\sigma$ uncertainty estimated from 90 jackknife subsamples. The solid lines with corresponding colors show the best-fit ESD profiles within $[0.06-2.3R_\mathrm{200b}]$ based on the NFW model profile (see Section~\ref{sec:spf}).}
|
\label{fig:ESD-data}
| null |
294
|
2508.00667
|
logM_est_bias_2.png
|
\caption{Top: The bias of the lensing estimated $\log \hat{M}$ from the mean $\log M_\mathrm{200b}$ in the lightcone sample. Crosses with error bars show the average and $1\sigma$ scatter of $\Delta \log M$ in 100 lightcone samples in each bin of $L_\mathrm{c}$ and $L_\mathrm{gap}$. Bottom: The above bias relative to the mean $\log M_\mathrm{200b}$ in the lightcone sample. The solid lines together with the shaded regions show the mean and $1\sigma$ scatter of the relative bias in 100 lightcone samples. Colors represent different bins of $L_\mathrm{gap}$, as labeled in the legend.}
|
\label{fig:logM_est_bias}
| null |
5,734
|
2508.00687
|
2x2_1orient
| null | null | null |
296
|
2508.00667
|
logM_before_n_after_calibration_0624.png
|
\caption{Best fit halo mass ($\log \hat{M}$) from measured ESD profiles shown by the unfilled circles, compared with the bias-calibrated mean estimator of $\log M_\mathrm{200b}$, $\log \hat{M}_\mathrm{bc}$, marked by filled circles in each bin of $L_\mathrm{c}$ and $L_\mathrm{gap}$. The errorbars of the unfilled circles represent the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the lensing best fit. The errorbars of the filled circles demonstrate the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the mean estimator, which is a combination of uncertainties from both the lensing best fit and the bias estimator. The $x$ values show the mean $\log L_\mathrm{c}$ in each bin. For visual clarity, the lensing best fits are shifted left by 0.05 dex.}
|
\label{fig:logM_before_n_after_calibration}
| null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.