Development of a GEM-TPC for H-dibaryon search experiment at J-PARC

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (04) ◽  
pp. C04009-C04009 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Sako ◽  
J K Ahn ◽  
K H Baek ◽  
B Bassalleck ◽  
H Fujioka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2011 ◽  
Vol 312 (10) ◽  
pp. 102005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Furukawa ◽  
Takeshi Inoue ◽  
Tsubasa Nanao ◽  
Akihiro Yoshimi ◽  
Masato Tsuchiya ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (02n06) ◽  
pp. 116-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
KAZUMA NAKAZAWA

It was successfully decided that the ΛΛ interaction was weakly attractive, by the E373 (KEK-PS) experiment with hybrid-emulsion method, recently. To get systematic understanding for double strangeness system, the experiment E964 has been approved at BNL-AGS. The experiment should provide us one hundred samples of light and heavy double-hypernuclei and information for the existence of the H dibaryon resonance. We will also get the first data of X-ray from Ξ--atom which shall give us information of Ξ--nuclear potential.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Lonnqvist ◽  
Micha Elsner ◽  
Amelia R. Hunt ◽  
Alasdair D F Clarke

Experiments on the efficiency of human search sometimes reveal large differences between individual participants. We argue that reward-driven task-specific learning may account for some of this variation. In a computational reinforcement learning model of this process, a wide variety of strategies emerge, despite all simulated participants having the same visual acuity. We conduct a visual search experiment, and replicate previous findings that participant preferences about where to search are highly varied, with a distribution comparable to the simulated results. Thus, task-specific learning is an under-explored mechanism by which large inter-participant differences can arise.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Kosovicheva ◽  
Abla Alaoui-Soce ◽  
Jeremy Wolfe

Many real-world visual tasks involve searching for multiple instances of a target (e.g., picking ripe berries). What strategies do observers use when collecting items in this type of search? Do they wait to finish collecting the current item before starting to look for the next target, or do they search ahead for future targets? We utilized behavioral and eye tracking measures to distinguish between these two possibilities in foraging search. Experiment 1 used a color wheel technique in which observers searched for T shapes among L shapes while all items independently cycled through a set of colors. Trials were abruptly terminated, and observers reported both the color and location of the next target that they intended to click. Using observers’ color reports to infer target-finding times, we demonstrate that observers found the next item before the time of the click on the current target. We validated these results in Experiment 2 by recording fixation locations around the time of each click. Experiment 3 utilized a different procedure, in which all items were intermittently occluded during the trial. We then calculated a distribution of when targets were visible around the time of each click, allowing us to infer when they were most likely found. In a fourth and final experiment, observers indicated the locations of multiple future targets after the search was abruptly terminated. Together, our results provide converging evidence to demonstrate that observers can find the next target before collecting the current target and can typically forage 1-2 items ahead.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Hanlon ◽  
Anthony Francis ◽  
Jeremy Green ◽  
Parikshit Junnarkar ◽  
Hartmut Wittig
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document