The production of the doubly charmed baryon in deeply inelastic $ep$ scattering at the Large Hadron Electron Collider

Abstract: In this paper, we carry out a detailed study on the production of the doubly charmed baryon in deeply inelastic $ep$ scattering (DIS) for $Q^2\in[2, 100]~\textrm{GeV}^2$, at the Large Hadron Electron Collider (LHeC) with $E_e=60(140)$ GeV and $E_p=7000$ GeV. To exclude the contributions from the diffractive productions and the $b$ hadron decays, we impose the kinematic cuts $0.3<z<0.9$, and $p_{t,\textrm{baryon}}^{\star2}>1~\textrm{GeV}^2$ in the center-of-mass (CM) frame of $\gamma^{*}p$. Based on the designed LHeC luminosity, by detecting the decay channel $\Xi^{+}_{cc}(\Xi^{++}_{cc}) \to \Lambda_c^{+}$ with the subsequent decay $\Lambda_c^{+} \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$, we predict that about 1880 (2700) $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ events and 3750 (5400) $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ events can be accumulated per year, which signifies the prospect of observing them via the DIS at the forthcoming LHeC. In addition, we also predict the distributions of a rich variety of physical observables in the laboratory frame and the $\gamma^{*}p$ CM frame, including $Q^2$, $p_t^{2}$, $Y$(rapidity), $p_t^{\star2}$, $Y^{\star}$, $W$, and $z$ distributions, respectively, which can provide helpful references for studying the doubly charmed baryon. In conclusion, we think that in addition to the LHC, the LHeC is also a helpful platform for studying the properties of the doubly charmed baryon.

\section{Introduction}\label{intro}

The doubly charmed baryon, interpreted as a three-quark state with two heavy $c$ quarks and a light quark $q$ ($q=u,d,s$) based on the quark model \cite{GellMann:1964nj, Zweig, Ebert:1996ec, Gerasyuta:1999pc, Itoh:2000um}, is very helpful for quantitatively testing the quantumn chromodynamics (QCD). It has attracted a great deal of attention from physicists. In year 2002 and 2005, the SELEX collaboration reported the observations of $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ via its decay channel $\Xi_{cc}^{+} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}$ \cite{Mattson:2002vu} and $\Xi_{cc}^{+} \to pD^{+}K^{-}$ \cite{Ocherashvili:2004hi}. However, the large production rates released by the SELEX Collaboration have not been confirmed by the BaBAR \cite{Aubert:2006qw}, the Belle \cite{Chistov:2006zj, Kato:2013ynr}, and even the FOCUS \cite{Ratti:2003ez} that is at the same collider of SELEX. In the past several years, the LHCb group has searched for the hadroproduced $\Xi^{+}_{cc}(\Xi^{++}_{cc})$ for many times \cite{Aaij:2013voa, Aaij:2017ueg, Aaij:2018gfl, Aaij:2018wzf,Aaij:2019jfq, Aaij:2019zxa}, collecting fruitful results. In 2013, the LHCb Collaboration performed its first search for $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$, reporting that the measured upper limit of the value of $\mathcal{R}(=\frac{\sigma(\Xi^{+}_{cc})\mathcal{B}(\Xi^{+}_{cc} \to \Lambda_c^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+})}{\sigma(\Lambda_c^{+})})$ is from $1.5 \times 10^{-2}$ (corresponding to the $\Xi_{cc}^{+}$ lifetime of 100 fs) to $3.9 \times 10^{-4}$ (400 fs). While the SELEX observation corresponds to $\mathcal{R}=9\%$ \cite{Mattson:2002vu}. Recently the LHCb group released their latest measurement on the upper limit of $\mathcal{R}$ \cite{Aaij:2019jfq}, varying from $6.5 \times 10^{-3}$ (40 fs) to $0.9 \times 10^{-3}$ (160 fs) for $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV, and $0.45 \times 10^{-3}$ (40 fs) to $0.12 \times 10^{-3}$ (160 fs) for $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV, which is still significantly below the value reported by the SELEX Collaboration\footnote{It is important to notice that the production environments of SELEX and LHCb are different, i.e., the collision of the hyperon beam (an admixture of $p,\Sigma^{-}$, and $\pi^{-}$) on a fixed target versus the proton-proton collsion at a much higher energy. Thus some process-dependent effects, e.g., the contributions of the intrinsic or extrinsic charm components in the proton or the hyperon which play a very important role in the low-energy production process \cite{literature21,literature24}, may help to clarify this issue. At this point, perhaps it is still premature to draw a solid conclusion concerning the consistency or inconsistency between the $\mathcal{R}$ values measured by SELEX and LHCb, respectively.}. Regarding $\Xi_{cc}^{++}$, a solid signal was firstly observed by LHCb via the decay channel of $\Xi_{cc}^{++} \to \Lambda_c K^{-}\pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ with $\Lambda_c \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$ \cite{Aaij:2017ueg} in 2017, which was subsequently confirmed by Refs. \cite{Aaij:2018gfl} and \cite{Aaij:2019zxa}. On theoretical aspect, the doubly charmed baryon productions at various high-energy colliders have been studied in detail in the literatures \cite{literature1, literature2, literature3, literature4, literature5, literature51, literature52, literature6, literature7, literature8, literature9, literature10, literature11, literature12, literature13, literature14, literature15, literature16, literature17, literature18, literature19, literature20, literature201, literature202, literature203, literature21, literature22, literature23, literature24, literature25, literature26, literature27, literature271, literature28, literature29, literature30, literature31}, such as the $e^+e^-$ annihilation, the photoproduction in $ep$ collision, the hadroproductions in $pp$ (or $p\bar{p}$) collision, and the indirect productions via the decays of $Z$ boson, $t$ quark, and the standard Higgs boson. Especially, a dedicated generator GENXICC~\cite{Chang:2007pp, Chang:2009va, Wang:2012vj} has been developed and has been frequently applied to study the production of doubly heavy baryon at the LHC.

In addition to the hadro- and photoproductions, the productions in deeply inelastic scattering (DIS) is another interesting process for the studies of the doubly charmed baryon, like the $J/\psi$ case \cite{Jpsi1, Jpsi2, Jpsi3, Jpsi4, Jpsi5, Jpsi6, Jpsi7, Jpsi8, Jpsi9, Jpsi10, Jpsi101, Jpsi11, Jpsi12, Jpsi13, DISexp1, DISexp2, DISexp3, DISexp4}. Analyzing the productions in DIS at finite $Q^2$ has theoretical and experimental advantages compared to the inelastic photoproduction ($Q^2 \simeq 0$). The large $Q^2$, such as the kinematic region of $Q^2\in[2, 100]~\textrm{GeV}^2$, corresponding to the inclusive $J/\psi$ productions in DIS at the Hadron-Electron Ring Accelerator (HERA), may decrease the theoretical uncertainties \cite{DISexp2} and improve the convergence of the perturbative series~\footnote{Ref.\cite{Jpsi10} shows that the next-to-leading order QCD corrections to the inclusive $J/\psi$ productions in DIS exhibits a rather good convergence, which is much better than the case of hadro- and photoproduction \cite{Jpsihadron1, Jpsihadron2, Jpsihadron3, Jpsiphoto1, Jpsiphoto2, Jpsiphoto3}.}; the contributions via the resolved photon are expected to be negligible since the probability of the resolved photon to emerge decrease rapidly with $Q^{2}$. Furthermore, the background via the diffractive production is also expected to decrease faster with increasing $Q^2$ than the case of the inelastic photoproduction process. On experimental aspects, the distinct signature of the scattered electron in the final state makes the process easier to be detected. Comparing to the hadro- and protoproduction, much more varieties of physical observables can be measured in the DIS process, such as $p_t^{2}$, $Y$(rapidity), $p_t^{\star2}$, $Y^{\star}$, $W$, $z$, and $Q^{2}$ distributions, where the left four variables are related to the doubly charmed baryon.{\em {Throughout the paper we employ the superscript $``\star"$ to denote the measured quantities in the center-of-mass (CM) frame of $\gamma^{*}p$}}.  In view of these advantages, the production in DIS can provide an ideal laboratory for studying the doubly charmed baryon, deserving a separate investigation.

The Large Hadron Electron Collider (LHeC) is designed as a sencond generation of DIS $ep$, and a first electron-ion collider \cite{LHeC1,LHeC2}. As reported in the Conceptual Design Report (CDR) of LHeC \cite{LHeC1}, it takes unique advantage of the intense, high energy hadron beams of the LHC, and a 60 GeV, to possibly 140 GeV, electron beam of high intensity based on a racetrack, energy recovery configuration using two 10 GeV electron linacs. Thus the LHeC will exceed the luminosity of HERA by a factor of $100$, reaching up to $\mathcal{L}=10^{33}\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$. Note that this value of $\mathcal{L}$ is based on the original design for LHeC in 2012, from today's experience with the LHC operation, the improved proton beam parameters of the HL-LHC (high luminosity) upgrade may lead to a significantly higher luminosity for the LHeC than the value of $ \mathcal{L}=10^{33}\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$. As reported in Ref. \cite{PDG}, by the parasitic operation in parallel to the HL-LHC $pp$ collision, the up-to-date luminosity of LHeC could be improved to be $ \mathcal{L}=0.8 \times 10^{34}\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$, about one order of magnitude larger than the designed value in 2012. From these perspectives, the forthcoming LHeC allows a multitude of crucial DIS measurements to be performed. Thus, in this paper, we will for the first time carry out the studies on the doubly charmed baryon productions in DIS ($ep$) at the LHeC.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In section \ref{intro}, we give a description on the calculation formalism. In section \ref{cal}, the phenomenological results and discussions are presented. Section \ref{sum} is reserved as a summary.

\section{Calculation Formalism}\label{cal}

\subsection{General Formalism}

It is a widely accepted view that the productions of the doubly charmed baryon can be factorized into two steps, c.f. Refs.\cite{literature7, literature23, literature24, literature29}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)]
The production of a $c$ quark pair by the perturbative calculable hard processes with the subsequent $c$ quark pair nonperturbatively forming a bounding $(cc)$-diquark with color- and spin- configuration $[n]$. According to the decomposition $3 \otimes 3=\bar{\textbf{3}} \oplus \textbf{6}$ in $\textrm{SU}_{\textrm{c}}(3)$ group, the diquark can only be in $\bar{\textbf{3}}$ and $\textbf{6}$ color state. Based on nonrelativistic Quantum Chromodynamics (NRQCD) \cite{NRQCD}, at the leading order of $v_c$ (the relative velocity of the two constituent $c$ quarks in the diquark), there are only two $S-$wave configurations for the case of $(cc)-$diquark \footnote{Other diquark configurations, i.e., $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and $(cc)[^3S_1]_{\textbf{6}}$ are forbidden due to the Fermi-Dirac statistics for identical particles.} \cite{literature7, literature23, literature24}, i.e., the spin-triplet $n=[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and spin-singlet $n=[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$ that can be described by a matrix element, $h_{\bar{\textbf{3}}(\textbf{6})}$. Regarding the $P-$wave processes, the contributions shall be at least $v_c^2-$suppressed to that of the $S-$wave processes. Taking the $\Xi_{cc}$ hadroproductions as an example, the $P-$wave contributions just account for about $3\%-5\%$ of the total result \cite{Berezhnoy:2020aox}. In view of these points, in this paper we just concentrate on the dominant $S-$wave contributions of $(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$.
\item[2)]
The hadronization of the diquark into a physical colorless baryon $\Xi_{ccq}$ ($q=u,d,s$) by grabbing a light quark with possible soft gluons from the hadron.  {\em For convenience, hereinafter we label the doubly charmed baryon as $\Xi_{cc}$ instead of $\Xi_{ccq}$}. During the hadronization procedure of the diquark into $\Xi_{cc}$, one usually assumes the total evolving probability to be $100\%$, referring as the $``\textrm{direct evolution}"$. Among this total $``100 \%"$ probability, the diquark fragmenting into $\Xi^{+}_{cc}(ccd)$ and $\Xi^{++}_{cc}(ccu)$ both accounts for $43\%$, respectively, and the ratio for $\Omega^{+}_{cc}(ccs)$ is $14\%$ \cite{literature27,Sjostrand:2006za}. Chen et al. in Ref. \cite{literature16} pointed out that the direct evolution and the evolution via the heavy quark fragmentation model suggested by Ref. \cite{fragmentation} lead to almost the same numerical results, indicating that the direct evolution mechanism is precise enough to describe the production of the doubly charmed baryon.
\end{itemize}

\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Feyn0.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Feyn}
The illustrative diagram for the $\Xi_{cc}$ production in deeply inelastic $ep$ scattering.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

According to the above steps, we draw the illustrative diagram regarding the DIS production process $e+p \to e+\Xi_{cc}+X$ in Figure \ref{fig:Feyn}, where $e_i$, $e_f$, $\gamma^{*}$, $g$, and $p$ represent the initial and final electron, the virtual photon, the gluon parton, and the proton, respectively. To be specific, we shall focus on the contributions from the dominant gluon partonic process $e+g \to e+\Xi_{cc}+\bar{c}+\bar{c}$; and the less-important contributions from the $c-$quark content in proton shall not be considered here. In addition, the observed value of $Q$ is smaller than the mass of the $Z$ boson, such as $Q^2\in[2, 100]~{GeV}^2$, thus we neglect the contributions from the $Z$ propagator, as well as the $H^{0}$ propagator, taking only $\gamma^{*}$ into consideration. By regarding the electron and proton as massless, we introduce some generally used invariants to describe the DIS process
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Q^2=-p_{\gamma^{*}}^2=-(p_{e_{i}}-p_{e_{f}})^2, \nonumber \\
&&W^2=(p_{\gamma^*}+p_p)^2, \nonumber \\
&&S=(p_p+p_{e_{i}})^2=2~p_{p} \cdot p_{e_{i}}, \nonumber \\
&&\hat{s}=(p_g+p_{\gamma^{*}})^2, \nonumber \\
&&s=\hat{s}+Q^2=2~p_{g} \cdot p_{\gamma^{*}},\nonumber \\
&&z=\frac{p_{p} \cdot p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{p_{p} \cdot p_{\gamma^{*}}},~~~y=\frac{p_p \cdot p_{\gamma^{*}}}{p_p \cdot p_{e_i}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Based on the NRQCD and the collinear factorization, we factorize the $\Xi_{cc}$ production in DIS via $e+p \to e+\Xi_{cc}+\bar{c}+\bar{c}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&d\sigma(e+p \to e+\Xi_{cc}+\bar{c}+\bar{c})= \nonumber \\
&&=\int~dx~\sum_{n} f_{g/p}(x,\mu_{f}) d\hat{\sigma}_{e+g \to e+(cc)[n]+\bar{c}+\bar{c}} \times \langle\mathcal O^{\Xi_{cc}}(n)\rangle,
\label{cross section}
\end{eqnarray}
where $d\hat{\sigma}_{e+g \to e+(cc)[n]+\bar{c}+\bar{c}}$ is the perturbative calculable short distance coefficient (SDC), representing the production of a configuration of the $(cc)[n]$ intermediate quark pair with $n=[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ or $[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$. The universal nonperturbative long distance matrix element $\langle\mathcal O^{\Xi_{cc}}(n)\rangle$ stands for the probability of $(cc)[n]$ pair into the corresponding diquark, subsequently fragmenting into $\Xi_{cc}$, i.e., $h_{\bar{\textbf{3}}(\textbf{6})} \times 100\%$ based on the direct evolution mechanism. $f_{g/p}(x,\mu_{f})$ is the gluon parton distribution function evaluated at the factorization scale $\mu_f$. The hard partonic SDC can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
d\hat{\sigma}_{e+g \to e+(cc)[n]+\bar{c}+\bar{c}}=\frac{1}{2 xS}\frac{1}{N_c N_s} |\mathcal{M}|^2 d\Phi.
\end{eqnarray}
where $1/(N_c N_s)$ is the colour and spin average factor; $|\mathcal{M}|^2$ and $d\Phi$ are squared matrix element and the 4-body phase space, respectively. In the following subsections, we depict the method of how to calculate $|\mathcal{M}|^2$ and $d\Phi$.

\subsection{$|\mathcal{M}|^2$}\label{M2}

\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Feyn1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Feyn1}
The Feynman diagrams for the subprocesses $e+g \to e+(cc)[n]+\bar{c}+\bar{c}$ ($p_4 \leftrightarrow p_5$).}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

For the subprocess $e+g \to e+(cc)[n]+\bar{c}+\bar{c}$, there are in total 48 Feynman diagrams, half of which are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:Feyn1} ($p_4 \leftrightarrow p_5$). The other 24 ones can be obtained by exchanging the two identical $c-$quark lines inside the diquark. Seeing that we have set the relative velocity between the two constituent $c$ quarks in the diquark to be zero, the two parts of 24 diagrams contribute identically. Thus at the cross section level we only need to calculate the 24 diagrams in Figure \ref{fig:Feyn1}, and multiply a factor of $2^2$. Simultaneously we should introduce an additional factor of $1/(2!2!)$ to deal with the identity of the two constituent $c$ quarks inside the diquark, and that of the two $\bar{c}$ quarks in the final states. To calculate $|\mathcal{M}|^2$, we decompose it as
\begin{eqnarray}
|\mathcal{M}|^2=L^{\mu\nu}H_{\mu\nu},
\end{eqnarray}
where $L^{\mu\nu}$ denote the leptonic tensor regarding $e_i \to e_f+\gamma^{*}$; $H_{\mu\nu}$ represents the hadronic tensor corresponding to $\gamma^{*}+g \to (cc)[n]+\bar{c}+\bar{c}$.

\subsubsection{Leptonic tensor}

By a direct calculation, one can obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
L^{\mu\nu}&=&\frac{1}{(Q^2)^2}4 \pi \alpha \textrm{Tr}[p\!\!\!\slash_{e_i} \gamma_{\mu} p\!\!\!\slash_{e_f} \gamma_{\nu}]\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{(Q^2)^2}8 \pi \alpha Q^2\left( -g^{\mu\nu}+\frac{4p_{e_i}^{\mu}p_{e_i}^{\nu}-2p_{e_i}^{\mu}p_{\gamma^{*}}^{\nu}-2p_{\gamma^{*}}^{\mu}p_{e_i}^{\nu}}{Q^2} \right)\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{8 \pi \alpha}{Q^2} l^{\mu\nu}.
\label{leptonic tensor}
\end{eqnarray}
If only one final-state hadron (e.g. $\Xi_{cc}$) other than the scatterd electron is observed, $l^{\mu\nu}$ can be decomposed into the linear combination of four independent Lorentz invariant structures as \cite{Jpsi8,Jpsi9,Jpsi10}
\begin{eqnarray}
l^{\mu\nu}=A_g \left(-g^{\mu\nu}-\frac{p^{\mu}_{\gamma^{*}}p^{\nu}_{\gamma^{*}}}{Q^2}\right)+A_L
\epsilon^{\mu}_L \epsilon^{\nu}_L+A_{LT}(\epsilon^{\mu}_L \epsilon^{\nu}_T+\epsilon^{\mu}_T \epsilon^{\nu}_L)+A_T\epsilon^{\mu}_T \epsilon^{\nu}_T
\label{leptonic tensor norm}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\epsilon_{L}=\frac{1}{Q}\left(p_{\gamma^{*}}+\frac{2Q^2 }{s} p_g \right), \nonumber \\
&&\epsilon_{T}=\frac{1}{p_t^{\star}}\left(p_{\Xi_{cc}}-\rho p_{g}-zp_{\gamma^{*}} \right),
\label{epsilon}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&A_g=1+\frac{2(1-y)}{y^2}-\frac{2(1-y)}{y^2}\cos(2\psi^{\star}), \nonumber \\
&&A_L=1+\frac{6(1-y)}{y^2}-\frac{2(1-y)}{y^2}\cos(2\psi^{\star}), \nonumber \\
&&A_{LT}=\frac{2(2-y)}{y^2}\sqrt{1-y}\cos(\psi^{\star}), \nonumber \\
&&A_{T}=\frac{4(1-y)}{y^2}\cos(2\psi^{\star}),
\end{eqnarray}
in which $\rho$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho=\frac{\left(p^{\star2}_t+M^2_{\Xi_{cc}}\right)/z+zQ^2}{s}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $p^{\star2}_t$ is the square of the transverse momentum of $\Xi_{cc}$; $\psi^{\star}$ denotes the azimuthal angle of the hadron ($\Xi_{cc}$) production plane around the $z$ axis relative to the lepton plane expanded by the incoming and the outgoing electrons. Substituting Equation (\ref{epsilon}) into Equation (\ref{leptonic tensor norm}), with the help of the current conservation equation $p^{\mu}_{\gamma^{*}}H_{\mu\nu}=0$, one can obtain a more convenient form of $l^{\mu\nu}$
\begin{eqnarray}
l^{\mu\nu}=C_1(-g^{\mu\nu})+C_2 p^{\mu}_g p^{\nu}_g + C_3 \frac{p^{\mu}_g p^{\nu}_{\Xi_{cc}}+p^{\mu}_{\Xi_{cc}} p^{\nu}_{g}}{2}+C_4 p^{\mu}_{\Xi_{cc}} p^{\nu}_{\Xi_{cc}},
\label{leptonic tensor new}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
C_1&=&A_g, \nonumber \\
C_2&=&\frac{4Q^2}{s^2}(A_L-2 \beta A_{LT}+\beta^2A_T), \nonumber \\
C_3&=&\frac{4Q}{p^{\star}_t s}(A_{LT}-\beta A_T),\nonumber \\
C_4&=&\frac{1}{p_t^{\star2}}A_T,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta=\frac{\left(p^{\star2}_t+M^2_{\Xi_{cc}}\right)/z+zQ^2}{2p^{\star}_t Q}.
\end{eqnarray}
Comparing the two leptonic tensor forms in Equations (\ref{leptonic tensor}) and (\ref{leptonic tensor new}), one can find that the four basic tensors in Equation (\ref{leptonic tensor new}) are only correlated to the hadronic process momentum ($p_g,p_{\Xi_{cc}}$), which can greatly reduce the complication of the subsequent contraction with $H_{\mu\nu}$. In Refs.\cite{Jpsi9, Jpsi10}, the leptonic tensor in Equation (\ref{leptonic tensor new}) have been utilized to calculate the $J/\psi$ productions in DIS at HERA.

\subsubsection{Hadronic tensor}

As stated in section \ref{M2}, there are 48 Feynman diagrams for the subprocess $e+g \to e+(cc)[n]+\bar{c}+\bar{c}$, which are representatively illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:Feyn1}. Because the calculation procedures for all the diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig:Feyn1} are similar, without loss of generality, in the following we just take the first diagram (Fig. \ref{fig:Feyn1}(a)) as an example to describe how to deal with the hadronic amplitude. By assuming that the virtual photon is attached to the fermion line including $v(p_5)$, we can write the hadronic amplitude of Fig. \ref{fig:Feyn1}(a) as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{M}^{H,1}_{\mu,\sigma}&=&\mathcal{C} g_s^3 e_c e \frac{1}{(p_4+p_{\Xi_{cc}})^2-m_c^2}\frac{1}{(p_g-p_5)^2-m_c^2} \frac{1}{(p_4+\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2})^2} \nonumber \\
& \times & \left\{\bar{u} \left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right) \Gamma_{\rho}  s_f(p_4+p_{\Xi_{cc}},m_c) \Gamma_{\mu} s_f(p_g-p_5,m_c) \Gamma_{\sigma} v(p_5)\right\} \nonumber \\
& \times & \left\{\bar{u}\left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right) \Gamma_{\rho} v(p_4)\right\},
\label{hadronic amplitude}
\end{eqnarray}
where $s_f(k,m)=k\!\!\!\slash+m$ is the fermion propagator, $\Gamma_{\mu,\rho,\sigma}$ are the interaction vertices, $\mathcal{C}$ is the color factor, and $e_c$ is the electric charge of $c$ quark. For the first fermion line in Equation (\ref{hadronic amplitude}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A}=\bar{u} \left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right) \Gamma_{\rho}  s_f(p_4+p_{\Xi_{cc}},m_c) \Gamma_{\mu} s_f(p_g-p_5,m_c) \Gamma_{\sigma} v(p_5),
\label{hadronic amplitude1}
\end{eqnarray}
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A}&=&\mathcal{A}^{T} \nonumber \\
&=&v^{T}(p_5) \Gamma^{T}_{\sigma} s^{T}_f(p_g-p_5,m_c) \Gamma^{T}_{\mu} s^{T}_f(p_4+p_{\Xi_{cc}},m_c) \Gamma^{T}_{\rho} \bar{u}
\left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right)^{T}.
\end{eqnarray}
By inserting the charge conjugate matrix $C=-i \gamma^{2} \gamma^{0}$, which satisfies the following equations
\begin{eqnarray}
&&CC^{-1}=1,~~~v^{T}(p_5)C=-\bar{u}(p_5),~~~C^{-}\bar{u}\left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right)^{T}
=v\left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right), \nonumber \\
&&C^{-} \Gamma^{T}_{\mu,\rho,\sigma} C=-\Gamma_{\mu,\rho,\sigma},~~~C^{-}s^{T}_f(k,m_c)C=s_f(-k,m_c),
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A}&=&v^{T}(p_5) C C^{-}\Gamma^{T}_{\sigma} C C^{-} s^{T}_f(p_g-p_5,m_c) C C^{-} \Gamma^{T}_{\mu}C C^{-} s^{T}_f(p_4+p_{\Xi_{cc}},m_c) \nonumber \\
&\times & C C^{-} \Gamma^{T}_{\rho} C C^{-} \bar{u} \left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right)^{T} \nonumber \\
&=&(-1)^{\xi+1} \bar{u}(p_5) \Gamma_{\sigma} s_f(p_5-p_g,m_c) \Gamma_{\mu} s_f(-p_4-p_{\Xi_{cc}},m_c) \Gamma_{\rho} v\left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right),
\label{hadronic amplitude11}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\xi(=3)$ is the number of the interaction vertices in $\mathcal{A}$.
Combining Equations (\ref{hadronic amplitude}), (\ref{hadronic amplitude1}), and (\ref{hadronic amplitude11}), the product of the two fermion lines in $\mathcal{M}^{H,1}_{\mu,\sigma}$ can be transformed as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(-1)^{\xi+1}\bar{u}(p_5)  \Gamma_{\sigma} s_f(p_5-p_g,m_c) \Gamma_{\mu} s_f(-p_4-p_{\Xi_{cc}},m_c) \Gamma_{\rho} \nonumber \\
&&\times v \left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right) \bar{u}\left(\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2}\right) \Gamma_{\rho} v(p_4) \nonumber \\
& = & (-1)^{\xi+1}\bar{u}(p_5)  \Gamma_{\sigma} s_f(p_5-p_g,m_c) \Gamma_{\mu} s_f(-p_4-p_{\Xi_{cc}},m_c) \Gamma_{\rho} \nonumber \\
&&\times \Pi^{0(\zeta)}_{p_{\Xi_{cc}}} \times \Gamma_{\rho} v(p_4),
\label{hadronic amplitude2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Pi^{0}$ and $\Pi^{\zeta}$ are the spin projector operators \cite{projector}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Pi^{0}_q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8m_c^3}} \left(\frac{q\!\!\!\slash}{2}-m_c\right) \gamma^{5} \left(\frac{q\!\!\!\slash}{2}+m_c\right), \nonumber \\
&&\Pi^{\zeta}_q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8m_c^3}} \left(\frac{q\!\!\!\slash}{2}-m_c\right) \gamma^{\zeta} \left(\frac{q\!\!\!\slash}{2}+m_c\right),
\end{eqnarray}
which are for the spin singlet $(^1S_0)$ and the spin triplet $(^3S_1)$, respectively. Finally, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{M}^{H,1}_{\mu,\sigma}&=&\mathcal{C} g_s^3 e_c e \frac{1}{(p_4+p_{\Xi_{cc}})^2-m_c^2}\frac{1}{(p_g-p_5)^2-m_c^2} \frac{1}{(p_4+\frac{p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{2})^2} \nonumber \\
& \times & (-1)^{\xi+1}\bar{u}(p_5)  \Gamma_{\sigma} s_f(p_5-p_g,m_c) \Gamma_{\mu} s_f(-p_4-p_{\Xi_{cc}},m_c) \Gamma_{\rho} \nonumber \\
& \times & \Pi^{0(\zeta)}_{p_{\Xi_{cc}}} \times \Gamma_{\rho} v(p_4).
\label{hadronic amplitude new}
\end{eqnarray}
From Equation (\ref{hadronic amplitude new}), it is not difficult to find the calculation for the doubly charmed baryon is similar to the charmonium case, except for the factor of $(-1)^{\xi+1}$ and the color factor.

The color factor in Equation (\ref{hadronic amplitude new}), corresponding to Fig. \ref{fig:Feyn1}(a), can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C}=T^{a}_{il} T^{b}_{ln} \times T^{a}_{jm}
\label{colorini}
\end{equation}
where $b=1 \cdots 8$ is the color indices of the incoming gluon. $i,j=1,2,3$ and $m,n=1,2,3$ denote the color indices of the two constituent $c$ quarks in the diquark and that of the two final-state $\bar{c}$ quarks, respectively. By the fact that $3 \otimes 3=\bar{\textbf{3}} \oplus \textbf{6}$ in $\textrm{SU}_{\textrm{c}}(3)$ group, the diquark can be either in anti-triplet $\bar{\textbf{3}}$ or in sextuplet $\textbf{6}$ color state. Based on this, we introduce the function $\frac{G_{ijk}}{\sqrt{2}}$ to describe the diquark color with $\sqrt{2}$ denoting the normalized factor, where $k=3$ represents the color indices of the diquark. $G_{ijk}$ is identical to the antisymmetric $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ ($\bar{\textbf{3}}$) and the symmetric $f_{ijk}$ ($\textbf{6}$),
which satisfies the following equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon_{ijk}\varepsilon_{i^{'}j^{'}k}&=&\delta_{i i^{'}}\delta_{j j^{'}}-\delta_{j i^{'}}\delta_{i j^{'}}, \nonumber \\
f_{ijk}f_{i^{'}j^{'}k}&=&\delta_{i i^{'}}\delta_{j j^{'}}+\delta_{j i^{'}}\delta_{i j^{'}}.
\label{color}
\end{eqnarray}
Then $\mathcal{C}$ in Equation (\ref{colorini}) can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{C} &=& T^{a}_{il} T^{b}_{ln} \times T^{a}_{jm}\times\frac{G_{ijk}}{\sqrt{2}}\sim \mathcal{C}_{B},
\label{color1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{C}_{B}$ is identical to $T^{b}_{ln} \times G_{mlk}$. Note that, the color factors of the diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig:Feyn1} can all be reduced into a product of $\mathcal{C}_{B}$ and some constants. With the help of the two relations in Equation (\ref{color}), $|\mathcal{C}_B|^2=8$ for anti-triplet $\bar{\textbf{3}}$, and 16 for sextuplet $\textbf{6}$.

Combining Equations (\ref{hadronic amplitude new}) and (\ref{color1}), one can obtain the complete form of $\mathcal{M}^{H,1}_{\mu,\sigma}$. In a similar way, the amplitudes for the other diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig:Feyn1} can be directly achieved. By summing all the amplitudes together and summing over the polarization vector of the incoming gluon, we finally obtain the hadronic tensor $H_{\mu\nu}$.

\subsection{Phase space}

To deal with the 4-body phase space $d\Phi$, we first decompose it into two components
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Phi&=&d\Phi_{L}d\Phi_{H},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Phi_{L}&\equiv&\frac{d^3 p_{e_f}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{e_f}}, \nonumber \\
d\Phi_{H}&\equiv&(2\pi)^4\delta^4(p_{\gamma^{*}}+p_g-p_{\Xi_{cc}}-p_{4}-p_{5})\frac{d^3 p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{\Xi_{cc}}}\frac{d^3 p_{4}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{4}}\frac{d^3 p_{5}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{5}}.\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating over the azimuthal angle of the outgoing electron, one can obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Phi_{L}=\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2 S} dQ^2 dW^2.
\label{phiL}
\end{eqnarray}
By introducing a new momentum $p_{45}=p_4+p_5$ with $p^2_{45}=s_1$, $d\Phi_{H}$ can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Phi_{H}&=&\left[(2\pi)^4\delta^4(p_{\gamma^{*}}+p_g-p_{\Xi_{cc}}-p_{45})\frac{d^3 p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{\Xi_{cc}}}\frac{d^3 p_{45}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{45}}\right] \nonumber \\
&\times& \left[(2\pi)^4\delta^4(p_{45}-p_4-p_5)\frac{ds_1}{2\pi}\frac{d^3 p_{4}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{4}}\frac{d^3 p_{5}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{5}}\right] \nonumber \\
&=&d\Phi_{H_1} \times d\Phi_{H_2}. \label{phase space}
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating over the three-momentum of $p_{45}$, we have (see e.g. Ref. \cite{Jpsi9})
\begin{eqnarray}
dxd\Phi_{H_1}&=&\frac{1}{32 \pi^2 p^{0}_{45}}\delta(p^0_{\gamma^{*}}+p^0_g-p^0_{\Xi_{cc}}-p^0_{45})dp^{\star2}_{t}\frac{dz}{z} d\psi^{\star} dx \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2 (W^2+Q^2)z(1-z)} dp^{\star2}_{t} dz d\psi^{\star},
\label{phiH1}
\end{eqnarray}
In the second step of Equation (\ref{phiH1}), we have utilized $\delta(p^0_{\gamma^{*}}+p^0_g-p^0_{\Xi_{cc}}-p^0_{45})$ to integrate over $dx$, thus the value of $x$ has been fixed at
\begin{eqnarray}
x=\frac{a+Q^2}{W^2+Q^2},~\textrm{with}~a=\frac{p^{\star2}_t+M^2_{\Xi_{cc}}}{z}+\frac{p^{\star2}_t+s_1}{1-z}.
\end{eqnarray}

As for $d\Phi_{H_2}$, in the CM frame of the two final-state $\bar{c}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&p_{45}=(\sqrt{s_1},0,0,0), \nonumber \\
&&p_{4}=(p^0_4,|\overrightarrow{p_4}|\sin{\theta_{\bar{c}}} \cos{\phi_{\bar{c}}},|\overrightarrow{p_4}|\sin{\theta_{\bar{c}}} \sin{\phi_{\bar{c}}},|\overrightarrow{p_4}|\cos{\theta_{\bar{c}}}), \nonumber \\
&&p_{5}=(p^0_5,-|\overrightarrow{p_4}|\sin{\theta_{\bar{c}}} \cos{\phi_{\bar{c}}},-|\overrightarrow{p_4}|\sin{\theta_{\bar{c}}} \sin{\phi_{\bar{c}}},-|\overrightarrow{p_4}|\cos{\theta_{\bar{c}}}).
\end{eqnarray}
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
d\Phi_{H_2}&=&(2\pi)^4\delta^4(p_{45}-p_4-p_5)\frac{ds_1}{2\pi}\frac{d^3 p_{4}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{4}}\frac{d^3 p_{5}}{(2\pi)^3 2p^0_{5}} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{d s_1}{2\pi}\frac{1}{(2\pi)^2}\frac{|\overrightarrow{p_4}|}{2}dp^0_4 d\Omega_{\bar{c}} d^4p_5 \delta(p^2_5-m^2_{\bar{c}}) \delta^4(p_{45}-p_4-p_5) \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{(4\pi)^3}\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_{\bar{c}}^2}{s_1}} ds_1 d\cos{\theta_{\bar{c}}} d\phi_{\bar{c}}.
\label{phiH2}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining Equations (\ref{phiL}), (\ref{phiH1}), and (\ref{phiH2}), we finally obtain\footnote{Note that, the derivation of $d\Phi_{H_2}$ is based on the CM frame of $p_4 p_5$, thus in the calculations one should transform to the $\gamma^{*}p$ CM frame, or the laboratory frame.}
\begin{eqnarray}
dxd\Phi=\frac{1}{(4\pi)^7 S (W^2+Q^2) z (1-z)}\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_{\bar{c}}^2}{s_1}} dQ^2 dW^2 dp^{\star2}_t dz d\psi^{\star} ds_1 d\cos{\theta_{\bar{c}}} d\phi_{\bar{c}}. \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}

In our calculations, the mathematica-fortran package $\textrm{M}\scriptsize{\textrm{ALT@FDC}}$ that has been employed to calculate several heavy quarkonium related DIS processes \cite{Jpsi8,Jpsi9,Jpsi10} is used to deal with $H_{\mu\nu}$ and $|\mathcal{M}|^2(=L^{\mu\nu}H_{\mu\nu})$, as well as the phase space integration.

\section{Phenomenological results}\label{results}

\subsection{Kinematic cuts and input parameters}

According to the CDR of LHeC \cite{LHeC1, LHeC2}, the designed beam energy of the incident electron and proton are: $E_e=60$ GeV, to possibly 140 GeV, and $E_P=7000$ GeV. Reviewing the inclusive $J/\psi$ productions in DIS at HERA \cite{DISexp1, DISexp2, DISexp3, DISexp4}, the measurements mainly cover the range of $p_{t,J/\psi}^{\star2}>1~\textrm{GeV}^2$, $0.3<z<0.9$, $2<Q^2<100~\textrm{GeV}^2$, and $50<W<225$ GeV. The cuts regarding $p_{t,J/\psi}^{\star2}$ and $z$ are applied to suppress the effects via the diffractive productions, which cannot yet be reliably described by purely perturbative QCD calculations, and that from the $b$ hadrons decay. As for the $\Xi_{cc}$ case, the situation is similar, so we shall also carry out the cut operation to avoid kinematic overlaps with the diffractive productions and the decay of $b$ hadrons. Considering the HERA is the unique available $ep$ collider by now, it is natural and reasonable to take its experimental conditions for reference to assume the kinematic cuts for the $\Xi_{cc}$ productions in DIS at LHeC. To be specific, in our calculations, we adopt the following cut conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
&&p_{t,\Xi_{cc}}^{\star2}>1~\textrm{GeV}^2,~W>50~\textrm{GeV}, \nonumber \\
&&2<Q^2<100~\textrm{GeV}^2, \nonumber \\
&&0.3<z<0.9.
\label{cuts}
\end{eqnarray}
The other input parameters are listed below
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)]
The charm quark mass is taken as $m_c=M_{\Xi_{cc}}/2=1.75$ GeV \cite{literature24, literature27}; the fine structure constant is $\alpha=1/128.$
\item[2)]
The default factorization and renormalization scales are chosen to be $\mu_f=\mu_r=\mu_0=\sqrt{Q^2+M^2_{\Xi_{cc}}}$.
\item[3)]
According to the velocity scaling rule of NRQCD, we take the usual assumption that $h_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and $h_{\textbf{6}}$ have the equal values \cite{literature7, literature23, literature24}, which are related to the wave function at the origin \cite{literature3, literature23}
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}=h_{\textbf{6}}=|\Psi_{(cc)}(0)|^2=0.039~\textrm{GeV}^3.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Integrated cross sections}

The integrated cross sections of $\Xi_{cc}$ via the two configurations of $(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$, under the kinematic cuts listed in Equation (\ref{cuts}), are predicted to be: \\
for $E_e=60$ GeV,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}}&=&19.5^{+7.20}_{-5.20}~\textrm{pb}, \nonumber \\
\sigma_{(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}}&=&2.42^{+0.90}_{-0.65}~\textrm{pb},
\label{total60}
\end{eqnarray}
and for $E_e=140$ GeV,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}}&=&28.0^{+7.90}_{-6.60}~\textrm{pb}, \nonumber \\
\sigma_{(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}}&=&3.48^{+1.01}_{-0.82}~\textrm{pb},
\label{total140}
\end{eqnarray}
where the uncertainties are induced by varying $\mu_r(=\mu_f)$ from $0.5\mu_0$ to $2\mu_0$. From Equations (\ref{total60}) and (\ref{total140}), one can find:  halving or doubling $\mu_r$ and $\mu_f$ simultaneously around the default value of $\mu_0$ will arouse a $30\% \sim 40\%$ variation of the integrated cross section; the integrated cross sections corresponding to $E_e=140$ GeV is about $40\%$ larger in magnitude than that of $E_e=60$ GeV; the contribution via the configuration of $(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ dominates over that of $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$, accounting for about $90\%$ in the total predictions.

Summing up the contributions of $(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$, we can collect about $1.75(2.52) \times 10^{6}$ $\Xi_{cc}$ events corresponding to $E_e=60(140)$ GeV in one year (assuming $10^{7}$ seconds running time\footnote{Approximately, 1 year $\simeq \pi \times 10^{7}$ sceonds, but it is common that a collider only operates about $1/\pi$ year, i.e., $10^{34}\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1} \simeq 10^{5}~\textrm{pb}^{-1}/\textrm{year}$.}), based on the up-to-date designed luminosity of LHeC $\mathcal{L}=0.8 \times 10^{34}\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$. By further considering the decay chain of $\Xi_{cc}^{+} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}$ ($\simeq 5\%$ \cite{Aaij:2013voa}) with the cascade decay $\Lambda_{c}^{+} \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$($\simeq 5\%$ \cite{Aaij:2013voa}), or $\Xi_{cc}^{++} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ ($\simeq 10\%$ \cite{Aaij:2017ueg,Yu:2017zst}) with $\Lambda_{c}^{+} \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$, we can accumulate about $1880$ reconstructed $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ events, and $3760$ reconstructed $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ events, corresponding to $E_e=60$ GeV. In the case of $E_e=140$ GeV, the numbers change to be about $2700$ and $5400$, respectively. Note that, throughout this paper the detection efficiency is assumed to be $100\%$. The thousands of reconstructed events per year strongly indicate the probability to hunt for the $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ and $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ events via the DIS at the LHeC.

For comparison, we now stop to test the prospect of observing the $\Xi_{cc}$ productions in DIS at the HERA. By adopting the same kinematic cuts as applied for the $J/\psi$ production \cite{DISexp2}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\Xi_{cc}}&=&3.61(3.69)~\textrm{pb},
\label{totalHERA}
\end{eqnarray}
corresponding to $E_e=$27.5 GeV and $E_P=820(920)$ GeV. According to the integrated luminosity of HERA, about $70~\textrm{pb}^{-1}$ in the years 1997-2000 \cite{DISexp2}, only less than 300 $\Xi_{cc}$ events can be generated there. Thus, it could be extremely hard to search for either $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ or $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ at the HERA by detecting their decaying into $\Lambda^{+}_c$ with subsequent $\Lambda^{+}_c \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$.

\begin{table*}[htb]
\begin{center}
\caption{The integrated cross sections (unit: pb) of $\Xi_{cc}$ corresponding to different $Q^2$ bins (unit: $\textrm{GeV}^2$) under the kinematic cuts in Equation (\ref{cuts}). $N_{\Xi^{+}_{cc}}$ and $N_{\Xi^{++}_{cc}}$ denote the number of the $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ and $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ events per year, reconstructed by the decay chains of $\Xi_{cc}^{+} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}$ with $\Lambda_{c}^{+} \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$, and $\Xi_{cc}^{++} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ with $\Lambda_{c}^{+} \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$.}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\hline\hline
$~$ & $E_e=60~\textrm{GeV}$ & $~$ & $~$ & $E_e=140~\textrm{GeV}$ & $~$ & $~$ \\
\cline{2-4}\cline{5-7}
$Q^2_{\textrm{bin}}$ & $\sigma_{\Xi_{cc}}$ & $N_{\Xi^{+}_{cc}}$ & $N_{\Xi^{++}_{cc}}$ & $\sigma_{\Xi_{cc}}$ & $N_{\Xi^{+}_{cc}}$ & $N_{\Xi^{++}_{cc}}$ \\ \hline
$2-3.5$ & $6.14^{+2.07}_{-1.64}$ & $528^{+178}_{-141}$ & $1056^{+356}_{-282}$ & $8.67^{+2.16}_{-2.04}$ & $746^{+186}_{-175}$ & $1491^{+372}_{-351}$\\
$3.5-6.5$ & $5.73^{+2.06}_{-1.53}$ & $493^{+177}_{-132}$ & $~986^{+354}_{-263}$ & $8.16^{+2.21}_{-1.90}$ & $702^{+190}_{-163}$ & $1404^{+380}_{-327}$\\
$6.5-12$ & $4.32^{+1.67}_{-1.14}$ & $372^{+144}_{-~98}$ & $~743^{+287}_{-196}$ & $6.21^{+1.86}_{-1.46}$ & $534^{+160}_{-126}$ & $1068^{+320}_{-251}$\\
$12-20$ & $2.52^{+1.00}_{-0.67}$ & $217^{+~86}_{-~58}$ & $~433^{+172}_{-115}$ & $3.65^{+1.17}_{-0.88}$ & $314^{+101}_{-~76}$ & $~628^{+201}_{-151}$\\
$20-40$ & $2.05^{+0.82}_{-0.55}$ & $176^{+~71}_{-~47}$ & $~353^{+141}_{-~95}$ & $3.03^{+1.00}_{-0.74}$ & $261^{+~86}_{-~64}$ & $~527^{+172}_{-127}$\\
$40-100$ & $1.13^{+0.46}_{-0.31}$ & $~97^{+~40}_{-~27}$ & $~194^{+~79}_{-~53}$ & $1.72^{+0.59}_{-0.43}$ & $148^{+~51}_{-~37}$ & $~296^{+101}_{-~74}$\\
\hline \hline
\label{total cross section}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}

\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Q2_60.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{Q2_140.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Q2}
The differential cross sections as a function of $Q^2$ under the kinematic cuts in Equation (\ref{cuts}), corresponding to $E_e=60$ GeV and $E_e=140$ GeV, respectively. $``Total"$ denotes the sum of the contributions via $(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$. The band is caused by the variation of $\mu_r(=\mu_f)$ from $0.5\mu_0$ to $2\mu_0$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The virtuality of $\gamma^{*}$, representing by $Q^2$, is a key variable for the DIS process, thus it is interesting to investigate the dependence on it. For the integrated cross section, we choose some $Q^2$ bins between $2<Q^2<100~\textrm{GeV}^2$ to present their values in Table \ref{total cross section}. From the data in this table, we find that the dominant contributions are localized in the relatively small $Q^2$ scope, for instance, the proportion taken by the contribution of $2<Q^2<20~\textrm{GeV}^2$ to the total result ($2<Q^2<100~\textrm{GeV}^2$) is about $85\%$. Although the integrated cross sections of $20<Q^2<40~\textrm{GeV}^2$ and $40<Q^2<100~\textrm{GeV}^2$ are not as large as that of $2 \sim 20~\textrm{GeV}^2$, accounting for about $10\%$ and $5\%$, respectively, the corresponding hundreds of events also allow us to perform the measurements in those two $Q^2$ regions. Regarding the differential cross sections, we draw the $Q^2$ distributions in Figure \ref{fig:Q2}. Throughout this paper, we adopt the binning pattern, instead of continuous curves, to present the predictions on the differential cross sections, as the $J/\psi$ case at HERA \cite{DISexp2}. One can find that, as $Q^2$ increases, $d\sigma/dQ^2$ decreases rapidly; the contribution of the $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$ configuration becomes increasingly important.

\subsection{Differential cross sections}

\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{pt2s_60.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{ys_60.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{pt2_60.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{y_60.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{z_60.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{w_60.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:dis60}
The distributions of $p_t^{2}(\Xi_{cc})$, $Y(\Xi_{cc})$, $p_t^{\star2}(\Xi_{cc})$, $Y^{\star}(\Xi_{cc})$, $W$, and $z(=\frac{p_{p} \cdot p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{p_{p} \cdot p_{\gamma^{*}}})$ under the kinematic cuts in Equation (\ref{cuts}), corresponding to $E_e=60$ GeV. $``Total"$ denotes the sum of the contributions via $(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$. The band is caused by the variation of $\mu_r(=\mu_f)$ from $0.5\mu_0$ to $2\mu_0$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{pt2s_140.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{ys_140.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{pt2_140.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{y_140.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{z_140.pdf}
\hspace{0cm}\includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{w_140.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:dis140}
The distributions of $p_t^{2}(\Xi_{cc})$, $Y(\Xi_{cc})$, $p_t^{\star2}(\Xi_{cc})$, $Y^{\star}(\Xi_{cc})$, $W$, and $z(=\frac{p_{p} \cdot p_{\Xi_{cc}}}{p_{p} \cdot p_{\gamma^{*}}})$ under the kinematic cuts of Equation (\ref{cuts}), corresponding to $E_e=140$ GeV. $``Total"$ denotes the sum of the contributions via $(cc)[^3S_1]_{\bar{\textbf{3}}}$ and $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$. The band is caused by the variation of $\mu_r(=\mu_f)$ from $0.5\mu_0$ to $2\mu_0$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

As stated in section \ref{intro}, comparing to the hadro- and photoproduction, the production in DIS allow us to measure more varieties of physical observables. Therefore, to serve as a preliminary, useful reference awaiting for the future measurements by LHeC, in addition to $d\sigma/dQ^2$, we further provide the differential cross sections of $\Xi_{cc}$ with respect to $p_{t}^{2}$, $Y$, $p_{t}^{\star2}$, and $Y^{\star}$, as well as the $W$, $z$ distributions, in Figures \ref{fig:dis60} and \ref{fig:dis140}, which correspond to $E_e=60$ GeV and $E_e=140$ GeV, respectively. Following the conventions of HERA, the forward direction of $Y^{\star}$ is defined as that of the incident virtual photo; $Y$ is taken to be positive in the direction of the incoming proton. As can be seen in the two figures,
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)]
As $p_t^{\star2}$ goes up, the differential cross sections continuously decrease, and the relative significance of the $(cc)[^1S_0]_{\textbf{6}}$ configuration increases gradually. With regard to the $p_t^2$ distribution, the situation is similar to the $p_t^{\star2}$ case, except that there is a small peak around $p_t^2 \sim 2.5~\textrm{GeV}^2$.
\item[2)]
For $Y^{\star}$ (rapidity) distribution, the differential cross section is seriously asymmetric. To be specific, the value of $d\sigma/dY^{\star}$ at $Y^{\star}=4$ is about five orders of magnitudes larger than that at $Y^{\star}=0$, which indicates, in the $\gamma^{*}p$ CM frame, $\Xi_{cc}$ is much more likely to be generated in the direction of the virtual photon rather than that of the incoming proton. The $Y$ distribution is also asymmetric, for example, $\frac{d\sigma}{dY}|_{Y=-1.5}$ is about two times larger in magnitude than $\frac{d\sigma}{dY}|_{Y=1.5}$, from which we can learn that, in the laboratory frame, more $\Xi_{cc}$ events will be generated along the direction of the incident electron.
\item[3)]
For $W$ distribution, the available $W$ values are scatted from tens to thousands, and the peak of the differential cross section is localized at the $W$ range of $100 \sim 150$ GeV. Regarding the $z$ distribution, $d\sigma/dz$ corresponding to small $z$ is several times bigger than that for large $z$. This inequality implies that the small (mid) $z$ region is the main source of the $\Xi_{cc}$ events.
\end{itemize}

In addition to LHeC, the forthcoming electron-ion collider (EIC) \cite{EIC} that is planned to be built at Brookhaven Laboratory (USA) is also helpful to study the DIS processes. Thus, at last we carry out an estimation on the $\Xi_{cc}$ production rates under the EIC running energy and luminosity. Taking the same kinematic cuts in Equation (\ref{cuts}), the integrated cross section of $\Xi_{cc}$ in deeply inelastic $ep$ scattering at EIC is predicted to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\Xi_{cc}}&=&0.48(1.39)~\textrm{pb},
\end{eqnarray}
corresponding to $E_e=$21 GeV and $E_P=100(250)$ GeV. Taking a conservative choice of the designed luminosity of EIC, $\mathcal{L} \sim 10^{34}\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$, about $50(150)$ reconstructed $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ events and $100(300)$ reconstructed $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ events can be accumulated in one operation year (assuming $10^7$ seconds), which indicates the EIC could also be a helpful laboratory to study the $\Xi_{cc}$ related DIS processes.
\section{Summary}\label{sum}

In this manuscript, we have carried out the studies on the productions of the doubly charmed baryons, $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ and $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$, in deeply inelastic $ep$ scattering at the LHeC with $E_e=60,140$ GeV and $E_p=7000$ GeV. Imposing the kinematic cuts as adopted in observing the inclusive $J/\psi$ productions in DIS at the HERA, about 1880 (2700) $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ events and 3760(5400) $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ events can be accumulated in one year by hunting for the decay chains of $\Xi_{cc}^{+} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}$ with the cascade decay $\Lambda_{c}^{+} \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$, and $\Xi_{cc}^{++} \to \Lambda_{c}^{+}K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ with $\Lambda_{c}^{+} \to pK^{-}\pi^{+}$. We also provide the predictions on the distributions of $Q^2$, $p_t^{2}$, $Y$, $p_t^{\star2}$, $Y^{\star}$, $W$, and $z$, which may serve as a useful reference for the future measurements at LHeC. Thousands of reconstructed events manifest the possibility of observing $\Xi^{+}_{cc}$ and $\Xi^{++}_{cc}$ baryons via the DIS production process at the LHeC. Thus we think, in addition to LHC, the LHeC can also be a good laboratory for investigating the properties of the doubly heavy baryons.

\acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Hong-Fei Zhang for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant No. 11647113,  No. 11705034 and No. 11625520, by the Project for Young Talents Growth of Guizhou Provincial Department of Education under Grant No.KY[2017]135, and by the Project of GuiZhou Provincial Department of Science and Technology under Grant No. QKHJC[2020]1Y035. \\

\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)


Charm and Charmonium Spectroscopy

Abstract: Recent experimental results in charm and charmonium spectroscopy are reviewed.

\section{INTRODUCTION}

The last few years have seen a revival of interest in charm
spectroscopy with more than a dozen new states being reported and
hundreds of new theoretical investigations being published. The advent
of the B-factories \cite{BABAR,BELLE}, with their large, charm-rich
data samples, has proven crucial to the discovery and investigation of
new charm hadron states, but other experiments have confirmed and
complemented the B-factory observations. Much interest has been
generated by several new states that do not appear to be easily
incorporated in the conventional picture of charm and charmonium
mesons.  Here, the focus is on the latest experimental results in
charm spectroscopy and the determination of the nature of the recently
discovered states.

\section{CHARM MESONS}

Before the start of the B-factories, only four charm-strange mesons
had been observed: the S-wave states \ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace and \ensuremath{D^{*+}_s}\xspace with $J^P=0^-$ and
$1^-$, and two P-wave states, \DsR{1}{2536} and \DsR{2}{2573}, assigned
to be $1^+$ and $2^+$ states. Two additional P-wave states, $0^+$ and
$1^+$, were expected, but predicted by potential models to have a
large decay width to a non-strange charm meson and a kaon
\cite{godfreyIsgur,pierro}. The observations of two narrow charm-strange
mesons below the $DK$ threshold, the \ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace \cite{babar2317} and
\DsR{J}{2460} \cite{cleo2460}, by the \babar\ and CLEO
collaborations have led to much speculation whether these are the
missing $0^+$ and $1^+$ states or perhaps new
types of particles \cite{DsJModelsNew}.

Several experimental studies of the \ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace and \DsR{J}{2460} have been
performed recently to understand their nature. \babar\ has performed a
comprehensive study \cite{DsJBR} of the possible decay to a \ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace meson
and up to two $\gamma$ or $\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ particles. The \ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace is only observed
in decay mode $\ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$, while the \DsR{J}{2460} is observed in
three modes: $\ensuremath{D^{*+}_s}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$, $\ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace\gamma$. None of these
decays are in disagreement with the assignment of $0^+$ and $1^+$ for
the two states. No other decay modes are observed and limits on the
branching ratios are measured \cite{DsJBR}. Isospin partners for the
\ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace are searched for in decays to $\ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^\pm}\xspace$, but none are observed
\cite{DsJBR}.

A separate study by \babar\ measures the absolute branching fractions
of \DsR{J}{2460} decays \cite{absDsJ}. The analysis selects \BB events
where one \ensuremath{B}\xspace meson is fully reconstructed and used to determine the
rest frame of the second \ensuremath{B}\xspace meson. An additional \ensuremath{D^\pm}\xspace, \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace or \ensuremath{D^{*\pm}}\xspace
meson from the second \ensuremath{B}\xspace is reconstructed and its recoil mass spectrum
studied. A signal is found for \DsR{J}{2460} and is used to measure
${\ensuremath{\cal B}\xspace}(\ensuremath{B}\xspace\to D^{(*)}D_{sJ}(2460))$. This is combined with previous
branching fraction product measurements \cite{DsJProdBF} to obtain
absolute branching fractions for \DsR{J}{2460} decays. The branching
fractions for the three observed modes add up to $(76\pm20)\%$,
indicating that most of the \DsR{J}{2460} decay modes have been
observed.

\ensuremath{B}\xspace meson decays have also been used to determine the spin of the two
new \ensuremath{D^{+}_{sJ}}\xspace states. In the decays $\ensuremath{B}\xspace\to D\ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace,
\ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace\to\ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ \cite{BelleDsJSpin} and $\ensuremath{B}\xspace\to
D\DsR{J}{2460}, \DsR{J}{2460}\to\ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace\gamma$
\cite{BelleDsJSpin,DsJProdBF}, the angular distribution of the \ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace
meson with respect to the $D$ meson in the \ensuremath{D^{+}_{sJ}}\xspace rest frame is measured.
This distribution is consistent with flat for the \ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace and quadratic for the
\DsR{J}{2460}, establishing that these states have spin 0 and 1,
respectively. The \ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace therefore has to be a $0^+$ state,
while for \DsR{J}{2460} the possibility of being a $1^-$ state can be
excluded by a similar angular analysis of $\DsR{J}{2460}\to\ensuremath{D^{*+}_s}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$
decays. This result indicates that the two \ensuremath{D^{+}_{sJ}}\xspace states are regular
charm-strange mesons, but does not explain why the potential models
underestimate their mass.

The SELEX collaboration has reported \cite{SelexDsJ26} the possible
existence of a new, narrow charm-strange meson decaying to $\ensuremath{D^+_s}\xspace\eta$
and $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace$ with a mass of about 2632\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace. This state,
\DsR{J}{2632}, is not observed by FOCUS \cite{FocusDsJ26}, Belle
\cite{BelleDsJ26} or \babar\ \cite{BabarDsJ26} even though all three
have significantly larger reconstructed samples of the nearby
$\DsR{2}{2573}\to\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace$ decays. This appears to exclude the existence
of this state.

Further studies of the $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace$ mass spectrum by \babar\
\cite{BabarDsj2860} instead show a peaking structure around
2.86\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace. The peak is visible using either $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\to\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace$ or
$\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\to\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ decays and the same peak is also seen in the $\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace\KS$
mass spectrum. No signal is seen in simulated events or with $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace$
mass sideband events. Nor is the peak due to pions misidentified as
kaons. A combined fit to the $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace\KS$ mass spectrums
gives a mass of $2856.6\pm1.5\pm5.0\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and a width of $48\pm
7\pm10 \ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. The spin-parity of this state has not yet been
established, though it has already been speculated that it could be a
$J^P=3^-$ D-wave state \cite{DsJ2860Theory1} or a radially excitation of
the \ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace \cite{DsJ2860Theory2}.

A broad structure is also observed just below 2.7\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace. A fit with an
additional Breit-Wigner gives a mass of $2688\pm4\pm3\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and a
width of $112\pm 7\pm36\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ for this structure. However, the fit is
not particularly good and there is a hint of structure in the same region when using events from a \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace mass sideband. \babar\ is therefore not able to established whether
this is a new state\footnote{After this talk was given, Belle
reported \cite{BelleDsJ27} a possible \ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace state in
$\ensuremath{\Bu}\xspace\to\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace$ decays with a mass of $\sim 2715\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$.  This
might be the same state.}.

\section{CHARM BARYONS}

Charm baryons with two light quarks provide an even richer particle
spectrum than charm mesons. Of the states without internal orbital
angular momentum ($L=0$), all nine $J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+$ states have
been known for years \cite{PDG2006}, while observation of the last of
the six $J^P=\frac{3}{2}^+$ states, the $\Omega_c^{*}$, has been
reported very recently \cite{OmegaCstar}.  Several possibly orbitally
excited charm baryons have already been observed, the latest of which
are summarized below.

One new charm baryon has been found \cite{babar2940} to decay to
$\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{p}\xspace$. A fit to a Breit-Wigner shape folded with experimental
resolution yields a mass of $2939.8\pm1.3\pm1.0\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and a width of
$17.5\pm 5.2\pm 5.9\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. A second, larger peak is fit with a mass of
$2881.9\pm0.1\pm0.5\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and a width of $5.8\pm 1.5\pm1.1\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ and
is identified as the $\Lambda_c(2880)^+$, previously discovered in decays
to $\Lambda_c^+\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$ decays \cite{cleoLc2880}. These
are the first charm baryons observed to decay to a charm meson and a
charmless baryon. The new state is identified as the isospin scalar
$\Lambda_c(2940)^+$, due to the absence of an isospin partner in the
$\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace\ensuremath{p}\xspace$ mass spectrum. The existance of the $\Lambda_c(2940)^+$
has been confirmed by Belle \cite{Belle2940}, who observed it in the
final state $\Sigma_c(2455)^{++/0}\pi^\mp$.  Its spin-parity has yet
to be determined.

Besides single charm baryons, double charm baryons are expected to
exist with a mass between 3.5 and 3.8\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace for the lightest states
\cite{ccBaryonTheory}. The only evidence for their existance comes
from SELEX, which reports an excess of events in $\Lambda_c^+\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace$
\cite{Selexcc1} and $\ensuremath{D^+}\xspace\ensuremath{\overline p}\xspace\ensuremath{K^+}\xspace$ \cite{Selexcc2} at a mass of
$3519\pm1\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$. No evidence of this state is found by FOCUS
\cite{Focuscc}, \babar\ \cite{Babarcc} or Belle \cite{Bellecc}, even
though they have $O(10)$ (FOCUS) and $O(100)$ (\babar, Belle) more
reconstructed charm baryons than SELEX.

In the same $\Lambda_c^+\ensuremath{K^-}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+}\xspace$ mass spectrum used to search for
double charm baryons by Belle, two new regular $\Xi_c$ states are
observed with masses of $2978.5\pm2.1\pm2.0\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and
$3076.7.5\pm0.9\pm0.5\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and widths of $43.5\pm 7.5\pm7.0\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ and
$6.2\pm 1.2\pm0.8\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ \cite{Bellecc}.  The non-zero widths preclude
these two states, $\Xi_c(2980)^+$ and $\Xi_c(3077)^+$, from being
double-charm baryons. The existence of these two states has since been
confirmed by \babar\ \cite{BabarXic}.  Belle also observes the isospin
partner $\Xi_c(3077)^0$ in the decay
$\Xi_c(3077)^0\to\Lambda_c^+\KS\ensuremath{\pi^-}\xspace$.

\section{CHARMONIUM-LIKE STATES}

Many new charmonium or charmonium-like states have been found in
recent years. Several of these have received particular attention,
since they do not seem to fit in the standard \ensuremath{c\overline c}\xspace spectroscopy
picture. The most studied of the new states is the $X(3872)$, which was
first discovered by Belle \cite{BelleXdiscover} in $\ensuremath{B^\pm}\xspace\to\ensuremath{K^\pm}\xspace X(3872),
X(3872)\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$ decays. The observation has since been confirmed
by several experiments \cite{CDFX,D0X,BabarX}. The latest measurements
of this decay \cite{BelleXMass,BabarXMass} yield a mass
$3871.2\pm0.6\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and an upper limit on the width of
$\Gamma<2.3\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ at 90\% CL.

Several other decay modes of the $X(3872)$ have been observed. Both
Belle and \babar\ have measured the radiative decay
$X(3872)\to\gamma\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace$ \cite{BelleRadiative,BabarRadiative} with a
branching ratio of $(19\pm7)\%$ relative to the
$X(3872)\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$ decay mode. The observation of this mode
implies that the $X(3872)$ has even charge-conjugation parity. The
rate is much lower than what one would expect if the $X(3872)$
was a $\chi'_{c}$ state \cite{SwansonRadiative}.  Belle also
observes the decay $X(3872)\to\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$ \cite{BelleDDpi}. This
decay mode appears to be dominant as it is measured to have a branching
fraction $9.7\pm3.4$ times higher than the $X(3872)\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$
decay mode.

The quantum numbers $J^{PC}$ of the $X(3872)$ have been studied using
the angular distributions of $X(3872)\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$ decays. Both $B\to
X(3872)K$ decays \cite{BelleXMass}  and inclusively produced $X(3872)$ mesons at CDF
\cite{CDFAngular} have been used. The combined analysis exclude
all possibilities except $1^{++}$ and $2^{-+}$. The $J=2$ hypothesis
is disfavored by the observation of the near-threshold decay
$X(3872)\to\ensuremath{\Dbar^0}\xspace\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace$. $J=1^{++}$ is consistent with the $X(3872)$
being a $\chi'_{c1}$ or a $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{\Dbar^{*0}}\xspace$ bound state
\cite{X3872Molecule1,X3872Molecule2}. The latter is currently viewed as the most
likely explanation, though tetra-quark models \cite{X3872fourquak}
have not been ruled out.

A second interesting charmonium-like state is the $Y(4260)$,
discovered by \babar\ in initial-state radiation (ISR) events,
$\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\to\gamma_{\mathrm{ISR}}Y(4260),$ $Y(4260)\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$
\cite{Y4260BabarDiscover}. It is a wide state with a mass of
$4259\pm8^{+2}_{-6}\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and a width of $88\pm23^{+6}_{-4}\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. The
observation of $Y(4260)$ in ISR events requires that
$J^{PC}=1^{--}$. The state has been confirmed by CLEO. They performed
an energy scan and observe a large increase in the cross section of
$\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$ and $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace\piz$ at
$\sqrt{s}=4260\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$ \cite{Y4260CLEOc}. The $\ensuremath{e^+e^-}\xspace\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$ cross
section is consistent with that measured by \babar\ in ISR events. The
observation of $Y(4260)\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^0}\xspace\piz$ implies that it has isospin
$I=0$. \babar\ has searched for several other possible decay modes of
the $Y(4260)$: $\ensuremath{p}\xspace\ensuremath{\overline p}\xspace$ \cite{Y4260pp}, $\phi\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$
\cite{Y4260phipi} and $D\kern 0.2em\overline{\kern -0.2em D}{}\xspace$ \cite{Y4260DD}. No signals are observed
and upper limits on the decay rates are set. The upper limit for the
$D\kern 0.2em\overline{\kern -0.2em D}{}\xspace$ mode is 7.6 times ${\ensuremath{\cal B}\xspace}(Y(4260)\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace)$ at 95\% CL,
which is much smaller than for example $\frac{\psi(3770)\to
D\kern 0.2em\overline{\kern -0.2em D}{}\xspace}{\psi(3770)\to\ensuremath{{J\mskip -3mu/\mskip -2mu\psi\mskip 2mu}}\xspace\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace}\approx 500$ \cite{psi3770}. This
suggests that the $Y(4260)$ is not a radially excited $\psi$ state,
such as $\psi(4S)$. Currently the most favored explanation is that of
a $\ensuremath{c\overline c}\xspace g$ hybrid state \cite{Y4260hybrid}, which is predicted
in this mass region.

\babar\ also searched for $Y(4260)\to\psi(2S)\ensuremath{\pi^+\pi^-}\xspace$ decays
\cite{Y4360}.  No signal for the $Y(4260)$ state is found, but a peak
is observed at slightly higher mass. The peak is also not consistent
with the $\psi(4415)$. A fit with a Breit-Wigner gives a
mass of $4354\pm 16\ensuremath{{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V\!/}c^2}}\xspace$ and a width $106\pm 19\ensuremath{\mathrm{\,Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace$. If $Y(4260)$
is the lowest mass hybrid state, this $Y(4350)$ could be an
excitation. However, more studies of are needed to confirm
the existence of this state and understand its properties.

\section{SUMMARY}

Charm spectroscopy has seen a lot of activity in the last few
years. The $\ensuremath{D^{*}_{sJ}(2317)^+}\xspace$ and $\DsR{J}{2460}$ mesons appear to be regular
$0^+$ and $1^+$ charm-strange mesons, but new charm mesons and baryons
have been found that need further study. In charmonium the $X(3872)$
and $Y(4260)$ have been found to be $1^{++}$ and $1^{--}$, but their
decay modes and masses suggest that these are not regular \ensuremath{c\overline c}\xspace
states.  They could be the first examples of a bound $\ensuremath{D^0}\xspace\ensuremath{\Dbar^{*0}}\xspace$ and a
$\ensuremath{c\overline c}\xspace g$ hybrid state, respectively. More experimental studies are
needed to confirm or refute these hypotheses.

High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex)

Charm and Charmonium Spectroscopy


Large increase of the Curie temperature by orbital ordering control

Abstract: Using first principle calculations we showed that the Curie temperature of manganites thin films can be increased by far more than an order of magnitude by applying appropriate strains. Our main breakthrough is that the control of the orbital ordering responsible for the spectacular $T_C$ increase cannot be imposed by the substrate only. Indeed, the strains, first applied by the substrate, need to be maintained over the growth direction by the alternation of the manganite layers with another appropriate material. Following these theoretical findings, we synthesized such super-lattices and verified our theoretical predictions.

\section{Introduction}
Ferromagnetic super-lattices with very high $T_C$ present obvious interests
for electronic applications.  This is the first step required to design and
control magnetism in more elaborate structures.  Perovskite manganese oxides
of generic formula $\rm A_{1-x}B_xMnO_3$ (A being a trivalent cation and B a
divalent one) are metallic and ferromagnetic in the approximative range of
doping values $0.17<x<0.5$~\cite{LSMO-DPh}. These properties are directly
related to the $3d$ shell of the manganese atoms and can be easily explained
by the double-exchange mechanism. The Curie temperature is thus directly
related to the delocalization within the $e_g$ orbitals of the $\rm Mn^{3+}~/~
Mn^{4+}$ ions~\cite{GoodEnough}, that is to the manganese ions orbital
order. Finding a way to design such materials with the desired $3d$ orbital
order would thus open the way to the design of artificial materials with the
desired magnetic properties, and thus to novel magneto-electronic
applications, including spin-valve devices or non-volatile magnetic memory
working far above room temperature.

The manganese $e_g$ shell is doubly degenerated (in a regular octahedron
environment) however only partly occupied. The $\rm Mn^{3+}$ ions are thus
Jahn-Teller active and small distortions of the oxygen octahedra can stabilize
one of the $e_g$ orbitals with respect to the other. If one can impose a
specific geometry around the Mn ions (for instance using synthesis in thin
films), it should thus be possible to choose between the $d_{3z^2-r^2}$ and
the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals which one will be occupied and which one will be
empty.  If the $d_{3z^2-r^2}$ is occupied, the double exchange will take place
essentially along the $\vec c$ direction, that is between $(\vec a,\vec b)$
planes (see figure~\ref{fig:dist}). On the contrary if the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ is
stabilized, the intra-layer double exchange will be very strong and the
inter-layer weak. In an essentially 2-dimensional (2-D) system such as thin
films, only the in-plane interactions are important and the control of the
orbital ordering should thus allow the control of magnetic exchange and the
associated Curie temperature, $T_c$. According to the above argument, the
Curie temperature of 2-D thin films will be maximized if one (i) stabilizes
the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital over the $d_{3z^2-r^2}$ and (ii) maximizes the
in-plane effective exchange integral, between the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals, by
preventing the tilt of the octahedra observed in the
bulk~\cite{structLSMO}. Indeed, in the double exchange mechanism, $T_c$ scales
as
\begin{equation}
T_c \sim J \sim t_{dp}^2 \sim S_{dp}^2
\end{equation}
($J$: effective exchange between adjacent Mn ions, $t_{dp}$: $({\rm
  Mn})\,d$--$({\rm O})\, 2p$ transfer integral and $S_{dp}$: overlap) and the
octahedra tilt lowers the $S_{dp}$ overlap between the Mn $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and
the O $2p_\lambda$ bridging orbitals.

\begin{figure}[h]
\resizebox{6cm}{!}{\includegraphics{distorsion_final.eps}} \\
\caption{(Color online) Schematic representation of orbital ordering induced
  by cell distortions in a two dimensional system. ($c>a$) The elongation in
  the $\vec c$ direction favors the $d_{3z^2-r^2}$ orbital occupation and weak
  in-plane ferromagnetic coupling, the delocalisation being essentially in the
  $\vec c$ direction. ($c<a$) The contraction of the $c$ parameter favors the
  $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital occupation, strong in-plane ferromagnetic coupling and
  large Curie temperature.}
\label{fig:dist}
\end{figure}

$\rm A_{1-x}B_xMnO_3$ thin films deposited on a cubic substrate presenting
$a=b$ parameters slightly larger than the bulk manganite value should thus
insure an increase of the manganite in-plane parameters and, in order to
approximately conserve the cell volume, a decrease of the $c$ parameter. With
$c/a < 1$ the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital occupation and large $T_c$ should be
favored, as desired.

Several authors synthesized such thin films as for instance $\rm
La_{2/3}Sr_{1/3}MnO_3$ (LSMO) thin films deposited on the $\rm SrTiO_3$ cubic
substrate~\cite{FM}. They found
that for a small number of LSMO unit cells in the $\vec c$ direction, the
magnetization as well as the Curie Temperature are strongly decreased compared
to the 370K bulk value~\cite{bulkTcSr}.  From twelve deposited unit cells
however the bulk behavior is approximately recovered with just a slight $T_c$
reduction. It is clear that the expected behavior and thus orbital ordering is
not realized in these films. In fact the quick recovering of the bulk magnetic
behavior tells us that the strains imposed by the substrate are essentially
very quickly relaxed as a function of the film thickness. This is most
probably the case for the octahedra tilt present in the LSMO bulk. One should
thus find a way to maintain the desired strains (in-place cell parameter
elongation and quadratic symmetry) over the whole film. For this purpose one
can think to alternate LSMO layers with layers of an adequate cubic material
as in $\rm \left[(La_{2/3}Sr_{1/3}MnO_3)_n (BaTiO_3)_p \right]_q$
super-lattices. We thus explored this possibility using first principle
calculations.

We studied, using periodic density functional theory~\cite{DFT}, the $\rm
(La_{2/3}Sr_{1/3}MnO_3)_3(BaTiO_3)_3$ super-lattice deposited on a lattice
matched $\rm SrTiO_3$ (001)-oriented substrate (see
figure~\ref{fig:SR}).
Since the epitaxial films normally follow
  the structure of the perovskite substrate,} we imposed to our system the
substrate in-plane lattice constants, $a=b=3.9056\rm~\AA{}$.  The $c$
parameter was optimized as well as atomic positions.

The super-lattice is built from metallic LSMO layers and insulating $\rm
BaTiO_3$ (BTO) layers. It is thus of crucial importance for the reliability of
the results to be able to accurately position the LSMO Fermi level referring
to the BTO gap. For this purpose we used hybrid functionals known to correctly
reproduce insulating gaps, that is B3LYP~\cite{B3LYP} and the very recent
B1WC~\cite{B1WC} specifically designed to obtain the correct properties on
ferroelectric materials such as $\rm BaTiO_3$. We thus used the CRYSTAL
package~\cite{CRYSTAL} with the basis sets and effective core pseudo-potentials
(ECP) of reference~\onlinecite{Bases}.
Another important technical point is the treatment of the $\rm La/Sr$
disorder. Indeed, in periodic calculations it is not possible to properly
mimic the ionic disorder. We thus made a whole set of calculations associated
with the two extreme cases, that is with the $\rm Sr$ ions totally ordered (3
different positions) and with average $\rm La/Sr$ ions. These average ions
were modeled either using ordered $\rm La/Sr$ ECPs but with averaged
effective nuclear charges (3 possibilities)
or by using only $\rm La$ ECPs with average effective charges.
All 7 different approximations of the ionic disorder were computed with the
two functionals. All of them yielded equivalent results and physical
properties, even if one finds slight numerical differences. One set of
numerical values (corresponding to B3LYP functional, ordered ECPs with the
strontium in the middle layer and averaged charges) are presented as a matter
of example.

\begin{figure}[h]
\resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig_3_superlattice_4.eps}}
\caption{(Color Online) Schematic representation of the super-lattice and
  calculated
inter-planar distances, c', and associated sub-cell
    volumes, V'} for the LSMO layer (\AA{}).}
\label{fig:SR}
\end{figure}
Considering the fact that the LSMO layers are extended in the $(\vec a,\vec
b)$ directions compared to the bulk ($a=b=c=3.87~\rm\AA{}$), our results
(figure~\ref{fig:SR}) are at first quite surprising. Indeed, the two LSMO
layers at the interfaces with the $\rm BaTiO_3$ are not only extended in the
$\vec a$ and $\vec b$ directions, but also in the $\vec c$ direction. It
results a strong extension of the
associated sub-cell volume}
with respectively $\rm 66.57~\AA{}^3$ ---~for the interface with a Ba-O
layer~--- and $\rm 61.44~\AA{}^3$ ---~for the interface with a Ti-O layer~---
to be compared with the bulk pseudo-cubic unit cell volume of $\rm
58.3~\AA{}^3$~\cite{structLSMO}. On the contrary, the central LSMO layer is
strongly contracted in the $\vec c$ direction resulting in a reduction of the
associated sub-cell volume ($\rm 56.87~\AA{}^3$). One sees immediately that
for the interface layers the $c'/a >1$ anisotropy strongly favors the
stabilization of the $d_{3z^2-r^2}$ orbital. This stabilization is indeed
associated in our calculations with a larger occupation of the $d_{3z^2-r^2}$
orbital compared to the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ one. The anisotropy is reversed for the
central layer ($c'/a<1$) and thus the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbital is stabilized and
presents a larger occupation number.  The magnetism is essentially
two-dimensional,
supported by the Mn ions (with 3.467$\mu_B$,
  3.541$\mu_B$, 3.886$\mu_B$)}. The $\rm BaTiO_3$ layers remain essentially
non magnetic.  We can thus predict two magnetic behaviors in these
super-lattices. The first one is related to the interfacial layers and is
associated with a weak in-plane double-exchange and thus a weak Curie's
temperature ($T_{c 1}$). The second one is related to the central layers and
is associated with a strong in-plane double-exchange and thus a strong Curie's
temperature ($T_{c 2}$). One can thus predict three different phases, the
first one at very low temperature with all three LSMO layers participating to
the magnetization, the second one at larger temperature with only the central
layer participating to the magnetism and finally, at high temperature, the
paramagnetic phase.

In an attempt to estimate the order of magnitude of $T_{c 1} /
  T_{c 2}$, one can estimate the double-exchange magnetic coupling. Indeed,
  even if in bulk manganites, the double-exchange is not always sufficient to
  explain the physics and polaron formation should be
  considered~\cite{Millis}, in fully-strained films such as the present one,
  we do not expect such relaxation mechanism to take place.  The
  double-exchange integral is directly proportional to the delocalization
  between adjacent magnetic ions and thus to the square of the overlap
  integral between the magnetic $3d$ orbital and the ligand $2p$ bridging
  orbital.  The $T_{c 1} / T_{c 2}\simeq \left| \langle {\rm
      Mn}\,d_{3z^2-r^2}|{\rm O}\,2p_x\rangle / \langle {\rm Mn}\,d_{x^2-y^2}{\rm
      O}\,2p_x\rangle \right|^2$ ratio can thus be undervalued by
  $1/(4\sqrt{3})^2 = 1/48$. Of course, this is a  calculation using crude
  approximations, however it tells us that there is more than an
  order of magnitude between $T_{c 1}$ and $T_{c 2}$.}

Another important result is the fact that the $\rm BaTiO_3$ triple-layer does
not preserve its insulating character but exhibit a weak, however non null,
density of states at the Fermi level in the dominant LSMO spin
orientation. This electronic delocalization through the $\rm BaTiO_3$
triple-layer insures the ferromagnetic coupling between the different LSMO
layers by what we could call a long-range double-exchange mechanism.

As a conclusion, first principles calculations predict for the super-lattice
\begin{itemize} \itemsep -0.3ex
\item two different ferromagnetic  phases, associated with two Curie
  temperatures differing by  nearly two orders of magnitude,
\item an optimized high Curie temperature  expected to be larger
  than the bulk one (no octahedra tilt).
\end{itemize}

We thus synthesized $\rm (La_{2/3}Sr_{1/3}MnO_3)_3(BaTiO_3)_3$ super-lattices
using laser-MBE deposition~\cite{Salvador} on a [001]-oriented $\rm SrTiO_3$
substrate.
We also synthetised similar super-lattices using the
  isoelectronic calcium manganite: $\rm La_{2/3}Ca_{1/3}MnO_3$ (LCMO). Indeed,
  one can expect in the LCMO super-lattice similar orbital ordering effects,
  for similar reasons, as predicted in the strontium one.}

The pulsed laser deposition was performed in low pressure ($5.10^{-4}\,$mbar)
to enable control of the growth using the Reflexion High Energy Electron
Diffraction (RHEED).
While the growth of the structures was carried out in low ozone content (0.1\%
volume), to promote a maximum oxidation of the super-lattice without
favorizing a strong diffusion between the different layers, the structures
were rapidly cooled in high ozone concentration (7\% volume).
The deposition of each material, namely BTO and LSMO
or LCMO},
was measured and calibrated by growing them independently under the same
conditions (620$^\circ$C, pressure $5\% \times 10^{-4}\,$mbar, ozone
concentration 0.1\,\% volume) using an in situ RHEED control for a precise
control of the growth of each layer.
Figure~\ref{fig:RHEED} shows two RHEED patterns, taken along
the [110] azimuth of the substrate. These two pictures evidence a streaky-like
diffraction pattern in agreement with a 2D growth of the super-lattice.
 \begin{figure}[h]
\resizebox{6cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig_5_RHEED.eps}}
\caption{RHEED patterns
for the BTO/LSMO super-lattice} along the
  [110] azimuth of the $\rm SrTiO_3$ substrate.  A: 620$^\circ$C, $5 \times
  10^{-4}\,$mbar ($\rm O_2 + O_3$). B: 120$^\circ$C, $5 \times
  10^{-7}\,$mbar.}
\label{fig:RHEED}
\end{figure}
The comparison between the two patterns taken at the end of the deposition (A)
and at the end of the cooling (B) evidences two features.  First, there is no
drastic modification of the pattern after the cooling process. Second the
in-plane structure of the super-lattice exhibits the same lattice parameters
as the $\rm SrTiO_3$ substrate and thus can be described in a perovskite-like
sub-cell. The B pattern also presents Kikuchi lines indicating the high
quality of the deposited film. These lines are not observed in pattern A, due
to the important scattering of the electrons at the deposition pressure.

To achieve a better structural characterization of the super-lattices an X-ray
diffraction study was carried out using a 4-circle diffractometer. Two
different set of reflections were studied: the out of plane reflections and
the so-called asymmetric reflections. From the first set of reflections, the
value of the out-of-plane lattice parameter could be calculated for the $\rm
[(La_{2/3}Sr_{1/3}MnO_3)_3(BaTiO_3)_3]_{25}$ super-lattice.  We measured an
out-of-plane lattice parameter of
24.281\,\AA{}}, corresponding
almost
(1\%)} to the value determined from the theoretical
calculations
(24.519\,\AA{})}.
This value is larger than the
expected value, calculated from the average out-of-plane parameters of films
of the two starting materials.  A Wiliamson-Hall analysis carried out on the
[00l] reflections shows that the coherence length of the diffraction along
that direction corresponds to 600\,\AA{}, that is the thickness of the
deposited film. The same analysis carried out on asymmetrical reflections
([011], [022], ...) indicates that the in-plane lattice parameter is
3.9048\,\AA{}, in agreement with the substrate lattice parameter, and that the
coherence length of the diffraction along an in-plane direction is
1000\,\AA{}, in agreement with the size of the terraces observed on the $\rm
SrTiO_3$ substrates.

The magnetic measurements (figure~\ref{fig:Mag}), carried out in the
temperature range
4-1000\,K}, evidence two ferromagnetic phases,
as predicted.
The first one at low temperature and the second
  for $T_{c1} < T < T_{c2}$. The low Curie temperature, expected to correspond
  to the two interfacial manganite layers, is about $T_{c1}\simeq 25\,\rm K$
  for the LSMO super-lattice and $T_{c1}\simeq 50\,\rm K$ for the LCMO
  one. The high Curie temperature, expected to correspond to the central
  manganite layer, is about 1000\,K for the LCMO system and about 650\,K for
  the LSMO one, that is far above both $T_{c1}$ and the bulk Curie
  temperatures, as predicted by theoretical calculations. Indeed,} the Curie
temperature of LSMO bulk~\cite{bulkTcSr} or thin films~\cite{fmTcSr} is 370\,K
and in the range 250-260\,K for LCMO bulk~\cite{LSMO-DPh,bulkTcCa} and thin
films~\cite{fmTcCa}. The two inserts of figure~\ref{fig:Mag} show that
magnetic loops can be registered both at 10\,K and 300\,K,
  insuring true ferromagnetic phases}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\resizebox{7cm}{!}{\includegraphics{fig_4_gmtht.eps}}
\caption{(Color Online) Magnetization (500 Oersteds) for the $\rm
  [(La_{2/3}Sr_{1/3}MnO_3)_3(BaTiO_3)_3]_{25}$ (red squares) and $\rm
  [(La_{2/3}Ca_{1/3}MnO_3)_4(BaTiO_3)_4]_{20}$ (green circles) super-lattices.
  Hysteresis loops of the calcium super-lattice, recorded at 10K and 300K, are
  presented in the inserts.
The arrows mark the bulk Curie
    temperatures}. The surface of both samples is 16mm$^2$.}
\label{fig:Mag}
\end{figure}

In summary we showed that it is possible to increase the Curie temperature of
a manganite ferromagnetic thin film far above the bulk Curie temperature, by
the control of orbital ordering. The key idea to reach this result is that the
strains applied by the substrate are not sufficient by themselves and that
they must be maintained using the regular intercalation of adequate layers.
Our findings open new opportunities for the design and control of magnetism
in artificial structures and pave the way to novel magneto-electronic
applications, including non-volatile magnetic memory working far above room
temperature.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
We aknowledge financial support from the ``programme ANR blanc'' under the
contract SEMOME, the European comunity and the CNRS (France) under STREP
contract MaCoMuFi (NMP3-CT-2006-033221). Computations were run at the IDRIS
and CRIHAN computing centers under projets n$^\circ$1842 and n$^\circ$2007013.

Strongly Correlated Electrons (cond-mat.str-el); Materials Science (cond-mat.mtrl-sci)