Geng Integrity Report — "Search for the doubly charmed baryon Ωcc+" (LHCb Collaboration, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 2021)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: CLEAN (no indicators of academic misconduct detected). This Chinese-language Geng audit report examines R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), DOI 10.1007/s11433-021-1742-7, a 2021 experimental high-energy physics search for the doubly charmed baryon Ωcc+. Four checks were performed: (1) arithmetic consistency of systematic uncertainties in Table 5 — the quadrature sum of 3.5%, 11.2%, 2.7%, 0.9%, 12.0% and 5.0% reproduces the stated total of 17.7%; (2) honesty in statistical reporting — a local 3.2σ excess at 3876 MeV/c² (Fig. 3) is correctly downgraded to a global 1.8σ after applying the look-elsewhere effect, with the authors declining to claim discovery and instead quoting an upper limit; (3) figure integrity — the six figures contain only invariant-mass histograms, fit curves, Feynman diagrams and confidence bands typical of HEP data, with no biomedical imagery to splice; (4) methodological timeline — Pythia, Geant4 and EvtGen are standard HEP tools, and the 5.4 fb⁻¹ dataset (2016–2018) and cited Ξcc++ mass references are internally consistent. No fabricated numbers or selective reporting were found. The report acknowledges that final misconduct determinations require institutional investigation.

Verdict

CLEAN. All four audit dimensions (data consistency, statistical honesty, figure integrity, methodological timeline) passed verification. No evidence of data fabrication, image manipulation, p-hacking, or anachronistic citations. The paper is presented as a model of statistically rigorous reporting.

Key findings

Table 5 systematic uncertainties are arithmetically self-consistent: √(3.5² + 11.2² + 2.7² + 0.9² + 12.0² + 5.0²)% ≈ 17.7%, matching the stated total exactly.
A local 3.2σ excess at 3876 MeV/c² (Figure 3) is honestly corrected to a global significance of 1.8σ via the look-elsewhere effect; the authors refrain from claiming discovery and report an upper limit instead.
All figures are standard HEP outputs (invariant-mass spectra, fit curves, Feynman diagrams, confidence belts); no biomedical imagery is present to assess for splicing or reuse.
Software stack (Pythia, Geant4, EvtGen) and the 2016–2018 LHCb dataset of 5.4 fb⁻¹ are temporally consistent; cited prior Ξcc++ mass measurements (Refs. [8], [9], PRL 2017/2018) precede this submission, with no anachronisms.

Evidence highlights

Arithmetic check (Table 5, p. 6): individual systematics — Fit model 3.5%, Hardware trigger 11.2%, Tracking 2.7%, PID 0.9%, Ξcc++ lifetime 12.0%, Simulation/data difference 5.0% — combine in quadrature to 17.7%, identical to the published total.
Statistical check (Figure 3, Section 4): local peak significance 3.2σ at 3876 MeV/c² is explicitly contextualised with the look-elsewhere effect, yielding global 1.8σ; conclusion is "no significant signal observed," with an upper limit reported.
Figure inventory: Figures 1–6 contain only HEP-standard plots; no Western blots, microscopy images, or photographic panels that would be susceptible to splicing or rotation-reuse checks.
Timeline: LHCb Run-2 data (2016–2018, 5.4 fb⁻¹) and simulation toolchain versions are consistent with a 2021 publication; no future-dated software or un-released reagents detected.

Notes

DOI 10.1007/s11433-021-1742-7 preserved verbatim.
Audit covers only the four dimensions listed; peer-review quality, theoretical interpretation, and detector calibration details are outside the scope of this automated check.
This is an AI-assisted preliminary screening; institutional or publisher investigation remains the authoritative channel for any formal misconduct determination. False positives and false negatives are possible.
The paper is flagged by the original reporter as a positive teaching example for handling the look-elsewhere effect in upper-limit analyses.