dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
The datasets 1-8 have already been used in the previous combination  [42]  of charm cross-section measurements, while the datasets 9-13 are included for the first time in this analysis. Dataset 9 of the current analysis supersedes one dataset of the previous charm combination (dataset 8 in Table  1  of  [42] ), because the earlier analysis was based on a subset of only about 30 % of the final statistics collected during the HERA II running period. For the inclusive lifetime analysis  [14]  (dataset 1) the reduced cross sections σ cc red and σ bb red are taken directly from Table  1  Datasets used in the combination. For each dataset, the tagging method, the Q 2 range, integrated luminosity (L), centre-of-mass energy ( √ s) and the numbers of charm (N c ) and beauty (N b ) measurements are given.
Dataset Tagging the publication. For all other measurements, the combination starts from the measured double-differential visible cross sections σ vis,bin in bins of Q 2 and either x Bj or y, where the visibility is defined by the particular range of transverse momentum p T and pseudorapidity 3  η of the D meson, lepton or jet as given in the corresponding publications. In case of inclusive D meson cross sections, small beauty contributions as estimated in the corresponding papers are subtracted. Consistent with Eq. (  1 ), all published visible cross-section measurements are corrected to Born level apart from the running of α, i. e. they include corrections for radiation of real photons from the incoming and outgoing lepton using the HER-ACLES programme  [66]. QED corrections to the incoming and outgoing quarks are judged to be negligible and are therefore not considered.
QQ red Except for dataset 1 of Table  1 , for which only measurements expressed in the full phase space are available, the visible cross sections σ vis,bin measured in a limited phase space are converted to reduced cross sections σ QQ red using a common theory. The reduced cross section of a heavy flavour Q at a reference (x Bj , Q 2 ) point is extracted according to σ QQ red (x Bj , Q 2 ) = σ vis,bin σ QQ,th red (x Bj , Q 2 ) σ th vis,bin. ( The programme for heavy-quark production in DIS, HVQDIS  [50] , is used with running α to calculate the theory predictions for σ QQ,th red (x Bj , Q 2 ) and σ th vis,bin in the NLO FFNS. Since the ratio in Eq. (3) describes the extrapolation from the visible phase space in p T and η of the heavy-flavour tag to the full phase space, only the shape of the cross-section predictions in p T and η is relevant for the corrections, while theory uncertainties related to normalisation cancel.
( 4 ) The three sums run over the different input datasets e, listed in Table  1 , the (x Bj , Q 2 ) grid points i, for which the measured cross sections μ i,e are combined to the cross sections m i , and the sources j of the shifts b j in units of standard deviations of the correlated uncertainties. The correlated uncertainties comprise the correlated systematic uncertainties and the statistical correlation between the charm and beauty cross-section measurements. The quantities γ i,e j , δ i,e,stat and δ i,e,uncorr denote the relative correlated systematic, relative statistical and relative uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The components of the vector m are the combined cross sections m i while those of the vector b are the shifts b j. In the present analysis, the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties are predominantly of multiplicative nature, i.
e. they are proportional to the expected cross sections m i. The statistical uncertainties are mainly background dominated and thus are treated as constant. All experimental systematic uncertainties are treated as independent between H1 and ZEUS. For the datasets 1, 8 and 11 of Table  1 , statistical correlations between charm and beauty cross sections are accounted for as reported in the original papers. Where necessary, the statistical correlation factors are corrected to take into account differences in the kinematic region of the charm and beauty measurements (dataset 11) or binning schemes (dataset 1), using theoretical predictions calculated with the HVQDIS programme. The consistent treatment of the correlations of statistical and systematic uncertainties, including the correlations between the charm and beauty data sets where relevant, yields a significant reduction of the overall uncertainties of the combined data, as detailed in the following section.
The combined cross sections are significantly more precise than any of the individual input datasets for charm as well as for beauty production. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 , where the charm and beauty measurements for Q 2 = 32 GeV 2 are shown. The uncertainty of the combined reduced charm cross section is 9% on average and reaches values of about 5% or better in the region 12 GeV 2 ≤ Q 2 ≤ 60 GeV 2. The uncertainty of the combined reduced beauty cross section is about 25% on average and reaches about 15% at small x Bj and 12 GeV 2 ≤ Q 2 ≤ 200 GeV 2. In Fig. 5 , the new combined reduced charm cross sections are compared to the results of the previously published combination  [42]. Good consistency between the different combinations can be observed. A detailed analysis of the cross-section measurements reveals a relative improvement in precision of about 20 % on average with respect to the previous measurements.
Comparison with theory predictions The combined heavy-flavour data are compared with calculations using various schemes and PDF sets. Predictions using the FFNS  [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]  and the VFNS  [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]  are considered, focussing on results using HERAPDF2. 0 PDF sets. The data are also compared to FFNS predictions based on different variants of PDF sets at NLO and approximate NNLO provided by the ABM group  [29, 32]. In the case of the VFNS, recent calculations of the NNPDF group based on the NNPDF3. 1sx PDF set  [41]  at NNLO, which specifically aim for a better description of the DIS structure functions at small x Bj and Q 2 , are also confronted with the measurements. The calculations in the FFNS based on the HERAPDF2. 0 FF3A PDF set will be considered as reference calculations in the subsequent parts of the paper.
This PDF set was determined using a charm-quark mass of m c (m c ) = 1. 18 GeV. The PDF sets considered were extracted without explicitly using heavy-flavour data from HERA with the exception of the ABMP16 set, in which the HERA charm data from the previous combination  [42]  and some of the beauty data  [14, 23]  have been included. For the predictions based on the HERAPDF2. 0 FF3A set, theory uncertainties are given which are calculated by adding in quadrature the uncertainties from the PDF set, simultaneous variations of μ r and μ f by a factor of two up or down and the variation of the quark masses within the quoted uncertainties. The FFNS calculations reasonably describe the charm data (Fig. 6 ) although in the kinematic range where the data are very precise, the data show a x Bj dependence somewhat steeper than predicted by the calculations.
For the different PDF sets and QCD orders considered, the predictions are quite similar at larger Q 2 while some differences can be observed at smaller Q 2 or x Bj. For beauty production (Fig. 7 ) the predictions are in good agreement with the data within the considerably larger experimental uncertainties. The description of the charm-production data is illustrated further in Fig. 8 , which shows the ratios of the reduced cross sections for data, ABKM09 and ABMP16 at NLO and approximate NNLO with respect to the NLO reduced cross sections predicted in the FFNS using the HERAPDF2. 0 FF3A set. For Q 2 ≥ 18 GeV 2 , the theoretical predictions are similar to each other in the kinematic region accessible at HERA. In this region, the predictions based on the different 123.
123 PDF sets and orders are well within the theoretical uncertainties obtained for the HERAPDF2. 0 FF3A set. Towards smaller Q 2 and x Bj , some differences in the predictions become evident. In the region of 7 GeV 2 ≤ Q 2 ≤ 120 GeV 2 , the theory tends to be below the data at small x Bj and above the data at large x Bj , independent of the PDF set and order used. In Fig. 9 , the corresponding ratios are shown for the beauty data. In the kinematic region accessible at HERA, the predictions are very similar to each other. Within the experimental uncertainties, the data are well described by all calculations.
VFNS predictions In Fig. 10 , predictions of the RTOPT  [37]  NLO and approximate NNLO VFNS using the corresponding NLO and NNLO HERAPDF2. 0 PDF sets are compared to the charm measurements. As in Fig. 8 , the ratio of data and theory predictions to the reference calculations are shown. While the NLO VFNS predictions are in general consistent with both the data cross sections and the reference calculations, the approximate NNLO cross sections show somewhat larger differences, about 10% smaller than the reference cross sections in the region 12 GeV 2 ≤ Q 2 ≤ 120 GeV 2. On the other hand, at Q 2 ≤ 7 GeV 2 the x Bj slopes of the NNLO VFNS predictions tend to describe the data somewhat better than the reference calculations. Overall, the NLO and approximate NNLO VFNS predictions describe the data about equally well, but not better than the reference FFNS calculations.
1sx PDFs. Both calculations provide a better description of the x Bj shape of the measured charm cross sections for Q 2 < 32 GeV 2. However, the predictions lie significantly below the data in most of the phase space. This is especially the case for the NNLO+NLLsx calculations. Overall, the description is not improved with respect to the FFNS reference calculations. The comparison to data of the different predictions considered is summarised in Table  4  in which the agreement with data is expressed in terms of χ 2 and the corresponding fit probabilities (p values). The table also includes a comparison to the previous combined charm data  [42]. The agreement of the various predictions with the charm cross-section measurements of the current analysis is poorer than with 123.
H1 and ZEUS the results of the previous combination, for which consistency between theory and data within the experimental uncertainties is observed for most of the calculations. As shown in Sect. 4, the charm cross sections of the current analysis agree well with the previous measurements but have considerably smaller uncertainties. The observed changes in the χ 2 values are consistent with the improvement in data precision if the predictions do not fully describe reality. The tension observed between the central theory predictions and the charm data ranges from ∼ 3σ to more than 6σ , depending on the prediction. Among the calculations considered, the NLO FFNS calculations provide the best description of the charm data. For the beauty cross sections, good agreement of theory and data is observed within the larger experimental uncertainties.
QCD fit and determination of the running heavy-quark masses In the QCD fit, the running heavy-quark masses are fitted simultaneously with the PDF parameters in Eq. (  6 ). The fit yields a total χ 2 = 1435 for 1208 degrees of freedom. The ratio χ 2 /d. o. f. = 1. 19 is similar in size to the values obtained in the analysis of the HERA combined inclusive data  [48]. The resulting PDF set is termed HERAPDF-HQMASS. The central values of the fitted parameters are given in the "Appendix". In Fig. 13 , the PDFs at the scale μ 2 f,0 = 1. 9 GeV 2 are presented. Also shown are the PDFs, including experimental uncertainties, obtained by a fit to the inclusive data only with the heavy-quark masses fixed to m c (m c ) = 1. 27 GeV and m b (m b ) = 4. 18 GeV  [59]. No significant differences between the two PDF sets are observed.
Only a slight enhancement in the gluon density of HERAPDF-HQMASS compared to that determined from the inclusive data only can be observed around x = 2 • 10 -3. This corresponds to the region in x where the charm data are most precise. When used together with the inclusive HERA data, the heavy-flavour data have only little influence on the shape of the PDFs determined with quark masses fixed to their expected values. This confirms the findings  [48]  made with the previously published combined charm data. However, the smaller uncertainties of the new combination reduce the uncertainty of the charm-quark mass determination with respect to the previous result 6  [42]. The beauty-quark mass determination improves the previous result based on a single dataset  [23]. The running heavy-quark masses are determined as: 6 The previous analysis did not consider scale variations and a less flexible PDF parameterisation was used.
It is based on analysing a large number of pseudo datasets called replicas. For this cross check, 500 replicas are created by taking the combined data and fluctuating the values of the reduced cross sections randomly within their statistical and systematic uncertainties taking into account correlations. All uncertainties are assumed to follow a Gaussian distribution. The central values for the fitted parameters and their uncertainties are estimated using the mean and RMS values over the replicas. The obtained heavyquark masses and their experimental/fit uncertainties are in agreement with those quoted in Eq. (7). In order to study the influence of the inclusive data on the mass determination, fits to the combined inclusive data only are also tried. In this case, the fit results are very sensitive to the choice of the PDF parameterisation.
45 GeV, m b (m b ) = 4. 00 GeV. The sensitivity to the PDF parameterisation and the large experimental/fit uncertainties for a given parameterisation demonstrate that attempts to extract heavy-quark masses from inclusive HERA data alone are not reasonable in this framework. The large effect on the fitted masses observed here, when setting E u v = 0, motivates the E u v variation in the HERAPDF-HQMASS fit. The NLO FFNS predictions based on HERAPDF-HQMASS are compared to the combined charm and beauty cross sections in Figs. 14  and 15 , respectively. The predictions based on the HERAPDF2. 0 set are included in the figures. Only minor differences between the different predictions can be observed. This is to be expected because of the similarities of the PDFs, in particular that of the gluon and the values of the heavy-quark masses.
The description of the data is similar to that observed for the predictions based on the HERAPDF2. 0 FF3A set. In Fig. 16 , the ratios of data and predictions based HERAPDF-HQMASS to the predictions based on HERA-PDF2. 0 FF3A are shown for charm production. The description of the data is almost identical for both calculations. The data show a steeper x Bj dependence than expected in NLO FFNS. The partial χ 2 value of 116 for the heavy-flavour data 7  (d. o. f. = 79) in the fit presented is somewhat large. It corresponds to a p value 8 of 0. 004, which is equivalent to 2. 9σ. A similar behaviour can be observed already for the charm cross sections from the previous combination  [42] , albeit at lower significance due to the larger uncertainties. In Fig. 17 , the same ratios as in Fig. 16  are shown for beauty production.
In general, the predictions from the fit with x Bj cut follow nicely the charm data. A similar study for beauty is also made but no significant improvement in the description of the beauty data is observed. The heavy-quark masses extracted from the fit with x Bj ≥ 0. 01 are consistent with those quoted in Eq. (7). Cross-section predictions based on the three PDF sets, discussed in the previous paragraph, are calculated for inclusive DIS. In Fig. 22 , these predictions are compared to the inclusive reduced cross sections  [48]  for NC e + p DIS. The predictions based on HERAPDF2. 0 FF3A and on HERAPDF-HQMASS agree with the inclusive measurement. The calculations based on the PDF set determined by requiring x Bj ≥ 0. 01 for the inclusive data predict significantly larger inclusive reduced cross sections at small x Bj.
This study shows that a better description of the charm data can be achieved by excluding the low-x Bj inclusive data in the fit. However, the calculations then fail to describe the inclusive data at low x Bj. In the theoretical framework used in this analysis, it seems impossible to resolve the 2. 9σ difference in describing simultaneously the inclusive and charm measurements from HERA, using this simple approach of changing the gluon density. The comparison of various theory predictions to the charm data in section 5 suggests that the situation is unlikely to improve at NNLO because the NNLO predictions presented provide a poorer description of the charm data than that observed at NLO. The combined inclusive analysis  [48]  already revealed some tensions in the theory description of the inclusive DIS data.
Summary Measurements of charm and beauty production cross sections in deep inelastic ep scattering by the H1 and ZEUS experiments are combined at the level of reduced cross sections, accounting for their statistical and systematic correlations. The beauty cross sections are combined for the first time. The datasets are found to be consistent and the combined data have significantly reduced uncertainties. The combined charm cross sections presented in this paper are significantly more precise than those previously published. Next-to-leading and approximate next-to-next-to-leadingorder QCD predictions of different schemes are compared to the data. The calculations are found to be in fair agreement with the charm data. The next-to-leading-order calculations in the fixed-flavour-number scheme provide the best description of the heavy-flavour data.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to the  HERA machine group  whose outstanding efforts have made these experiments possible. We appreciate the contributions to the construction, maintenance and operation of the H1 and ZEUS detectors of many people who are not listed as authors. We thank our funding agencies for financial support, the  DESY  technical staff for continuous assistance and the  DESY directorate  for their support and for the hospitality they extended to the non-DESY members of the collaborations. We would like to give credit to all partners contributing to the  EGI computing infrastructure  for their support.
2 25 650. 0 0. 01300 0. 0164 8. 1 7. 5 1 3. 1. 1 26 650. 0 0. 03200 0. 0103 8. 1 8. 7 1 4. 6. 8 27 2000. 0 0. 05000 0. 0052 30. 6 1 5. 2 4 7. 6. 6 reduced beauty cross-section measurements. A χ 2 value of 149 for 187 degrees of freedom (d. o. f. ) is obtained in the combination, indicating good consistency of the input datasets.
f S RM represents the absolute normalization factor obtained through the Saturated Resonance Method from the accurately known value of the saturated plateau of the first resonance in the 197 Au(n,γ) ancillary measurement. The 28 s-wave resonances in the experimental capture yield have been analysed and parameterized using the Bayesian R-matrix analysis code SAMMY  [21]  and extracting individual resonance parameters for the first time in history. From the statistical analysis of the resonances we can conclude that the TALYS prediction clearly overestimates the 171 Tm capture cross section in terms of both resonance strength and resonance density. These average parameters affect the cross-section in the keV range and thus a clear reduction of the MACS compared to TALYS prediction is expected.
al. (the only previous measurement available) indicate a 1. 5-2 times higher cross section. The new data also indicate quite different cross section values for neutron capture going to the ground and isomer state of 148 Pm, contrary to what was found by Reifarth et al. [26]. EPJ Web of Conferences 193, 04007 (2018) https://doi. org/10. 1051/epjconf/201819304007 FISSION 2017.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge financial support by  University of Sevilla  via the  VI PPIT-US program , the  Spanish   FPA2013-45083-P  and  FPA2014-53290-C2-2-P  projects, and the  EC FP7 projects NeutAndalus  (Grant No. 334315 ) and CHANDA (Grant No. 605203 ). The SARAF-LiLiT experiment was supported by the  Pazi Foundation (Israel)  and  Israel Science Foundation  (Grant No. 1387/15 ).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank  T. P. Devereaux ,  M. -H. Julien ,  S. A. Kivelson ,  D. Leboeuf ,  C. Meingast ,  J. Schmalian , and  L. Taillefer  for fruitful discussions, and  FEI  for assistance with the PFIB sample preparation. Funding: We acknowledge the support of the  Helmholtz association through the program Science and Technology of Nanosystems  and of the  Max Planck Society. R. A. B. acknowledges partial financial support from  Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica  (PICT 2014 no. 2618 ) and  CONICET  ( PIP 0446 ). Author contributions: IXS experiments were carried out by S. M. S. , H. -H. K. , E. L. , M. M. , M. T. , A. B. , and M. L. T. IXS data were analyzed by S. M. S. and M. L. T. X-ray diffraction experiments were carried out by H. -H. K. , S. M. S. , E. L. , M.
[31]. This update uses 79. 8 fb -1 of pp collision data collected at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, to be compared with 36. 1 fb -1 for the previous result. In addition, an updated version of the ATLAS reconstruction code and improved object calibrations are used, the impact of the luminosity and modelling systematic uncertainties are reduced from updated measurements and estimates, and larger samples of simulated events are used to model the background processes. Events are selected in 0-, 1-and 2-lepton channels, based on the number of charged leptons, (electrons or muons), to explore the Z H → ννb b, W H → νb b and Z H → b b signatures, respectively. The dominant background processes after the event selection are V + jets, t t, single-top and diboson process. Multivariate discriminants, built from variables that describe the kinematics of the selected events, are used to maximise the sensitivity to the Higgs boson signal.
0-lepton channel The online selection uses E miss T triggers with thresholds that varied from 70 GeV to 110 GeV between the 2015 and 2017 data-taking periods. Their efficiency was measured in W+jets, Z+jets and t t events in data using single-muon triggers, resulting in correction factors that are applied to the simulated events, ranging from 1. 05 at the offline E miss T threshold of 150 GeV to a negligible deviation from unity at an E miss T above 200 GeV. A requirement on the scalar sum of the transverse momenta H T of the jets removes a small part of the phase space where the trigger efficiency depends mildly on the number of jets in the event. Events with any loose lepton are rejected. High E miss T in multi-jet events typically arises from mismeasured jets in the calorimeters. Such events are efficiently removed by requirements on the angular separation of the E miss T , jets, and p miss T (the missing transverse momentum calculated using only tracks reconstructed in the inner tracking detector and matched to the primary vertex).
Data, simulated samples and multi-jet background The data used in this analysis were collected at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV during the 2015-2017 running periods. Events are selected for analysis only if they are of good quality and if all the relevant Table  4 : The generators used for the simulation of the signal and background processes. If not specified, the order of the cross-section calculation refers to the expansion in the strong coupling constant (α S ). The acronyms ME, PS and UE stand for matrix element, parton shower and underlying event, respectively. ( ) The events were generated using the first PDF in the NNPDF3. 0NLO set and subsequently reweighted to the PDF4LHC15NLO set  [73]  using the internal algorithm in P -B 2. ( †) The NNLO(QCD)+NLO(EW) cross-section calculation for the pp → Z H process already includes the gg → Z H contribution.