\section{Introduction}
The undeniable success of the quark model to put in order the bulk of hadronic states \cite{isgur, karl, capstick,  roberts, vijande} has not precluded that some states show a richer structure than the
standard  $q\bar{q}$  meson and $qqq$ baryon composition. Many different structures have been proposed to understand different hadronic states, as tetraquarks, pentaquarks, hybrids, molecules (see recent
reviews on these topics \cite{chen,lebed, pilloni, guo, stone, olsen, karliner, liu,hanhartxyz}). The molecular picture to describe  many hadronic states \cite{guo} received an undeniable boost, with  a
broad consensus reached that the recently observed pentaquark states \cite{pentaex} are of molecular
 nature \cite{pentaex,zhusl,pavon,jhe,zhifeng,xiao,zhang,meng,voloshin, elena, zgwang, manapavon, xu, manalogeng, burns, zou, hosaka}, as originally predicted in Ref. \cite{molinawu}.

 It is fair to recall that there are also many such cases of  molecular nature in the light sector. The  case of light scalar mesons, $f_0(500)$, $f_0(980)$, $a_0(980)$, as dynamically generated  resonances from the
 pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar interaction \cite{npa,kaiser, markushin, juan} has received much attention (see reviews \cite{angelsoller,review}). So is the case of axial vector mesons, generated from the
  interaction of pseudoscalar and vector mesons \cite{lutz,roca},  or particular  baryons  like the two $\Lambda(1405)$,
  $N^*(1535)$, $\cdots $, generated from the meson-baryon   interaction \cite{weise,ramos, ollerulf, kolo, inoue, carmen, jido, hyodo, kamiya}.

  With so much work done in these sectors,  it is surprising that the interaction of vector mesons among themselves  has received comparatively much less attention.
  The reason probably  is that  the chiral Lagrangians  \cite{weinberg,gasser} do not deal with the interaction of vector mesons among  themselves  and the works reported  before
  rely upon the  chiral Lagrangians using a unitary extension that matches them at low energies.

The link of the former works to the vector-vector interaction can be traced to the work of Ref. \cite{rafael}, where it was shown that the chiral Lagrangians up to $O(p^4)$, and implementing vector meson
dominance, can be equally  obtained using the local hidden gauge approach \cite{hidden1,hidden2,hidden4,hideko} through the exchange of vector mesons. The local hidden gauge approach,
dealing explicitly with vector mesons, provides the tools  for the vector-vector interaction through a contact term and the exchange of vector mesons.  This formalism was used in \cite{raquel,gengvec}
to study first the $\rho\rho$ interaction \cite{raquel} and then extended to SU(3) \cite{gengvec}. As a consequence of that, vector-vector bound states that decay into lighter mesons were found in these
works, and the  $f_0(1370)$, $f_2(1270)$, $f_0(1710)$, $f'_2(1525)$, $\bar{K}^{*0}_2(1430)$ resonances, among others, were generated within this approach.  The consistency of this picture with many reactions where
these resonances are produced has been tested, for instance, in $\bar{B}^0$ and $\bar{B}^0_s$ decays \cite{xie}, photoproduction of the $f_{2}(1270)$,  $f'_2(1525)$ \cite{xiephoto,xieogeng}, the coupling of
$f_0(1370)$ and  $f_2(1270)$ to $\gamma\gamma$ \cite{yamagata},  the $J/\psi$ decay into $\phi (\omega)$ and some of these  resonances, together with decay  to $K^{*0}$ and the $\bar{K}^{*0}_2 (1430)$ \cite{alberdai}, and the
production  of these resonances in $\psi (nS)$ and $\Upsilon (nS)$ decays \cite{dai,dai2}.

In the present work we want to retake the issue of the $J/\psi$ decay \cite{alberdai}. In that work we introduced some Lagrangians, involving transition of  $J/\psi$ to three vectors  by analogy to a
similar work in $J/\psi \to  \phi(\omega) PP$,  with $P$ a pseudoscalar meson, where the PP mesons interact producing the $f_0(500)$ and  $f_0(980)$ resonances  \cite{ollerpsi,palomar,lahde}. In  Refs. \cite{ollerpsi} and
\cite{palomar} two different formalisms, although equivalent, were used to study the process. In between,  different methods, based on the $c\bar{c}$ character as a singlet of SU(3) have been developed, which
are conceptually easier. Indeed, in Ref. \cite{liangsakai}, where the  $J/\psi \to \eta (\eta') h_1(1380)$ BESIII reaction has been studied \cite{besh1}, the basic ingredient  is the $J/\psi \to VVP$ ($V$ for vector)
transition, followed by $VP$ interaction that, according to \cite{lutz,roca} generates the axial  vector mesons. The $J/\psi$ is assumed  to be an SU(3) singlet and then  two structures  are used $\langle VVP \rangle$
and $\langle VV \rangle \langle P \rangle$, with  $V$ and $P$  the SU(3) matrices of vectors and  pseudoscalars in SU(3), and  $\langle  \rangle$ standing for the trace of these matrices.  The formalism of Ref. \cite{liangsakai}
is shown to be equivalent to those of Refs. \cite{ollerpsi,palomar}, yet technically easier, and more intuitive, with the dominant $\langle VVP \rangle$ contribution found to be equivalent to the main term in Refs.
\cite{ollerpsi} and \cite{palomar}.

The  dominance of the trace of three mesons has also been established in the $\chi_{c1}$ decay into $\eta\pi^+\pi^-$ \cite{karmicer}, where the  $\langle PPP \rangle$  structure for primary production
of three pseudoscalars in the  $\chi_{c1}$ decay is followed by the interaction of $PP$ pairs to produce the $a_0(980)$ and  the $f_0(500)$ resonances \cite{liangchi1}.  Similarly, the $\langle VVP \rangle$
structure has also been tested  as the dominant one in the study of the $\chi_{cJ}$ decay into $\phi h_1(1380)$ \cite{besphih1}, where $\phi$ is a spectator  and the other $VP$ pair interacts to produce the
$h_1(1380)$ \cite{shengyuan}.

In the present work we want to study the $J/\psi$ decay into $\phi (\omega)$ and  vector resonances that come from the vector-vector interaction. We then assume that the $J/\psi (c\bar{c})$  is an SU(3) singlet
and take the $\langle VVV \rangle$ primary production, followed by the interaction of the $VV$ pairs.  We shall also consider  a possible small contribution of the  $\langle VV \rangle \langle V \rangle$
structure, which has some similarity to the $\langle VV \rangle \langle P\rangle$ structure of \cite{liangsakai}, but cannot be taken from there since these correspond to different structures.

The issue of the vector-vector interactions  has been vindicated recently after the debate  created by the works  \cite{gulmez, guodis}  questioning the $f_{2}(1270)$
as a $\rho\rho$ molecular state. The claims of these works contradict basic Quantum Mechanics rules because the $f_0(1370)$ state was produced in Refs. \cite{gulmez,guodis}, as in Refs. \cite{raquel,gengvec}, and the potential in the $J=2$ sector
is more than twice bigger than for $J=0$ and attractive, hence the $f_2$ state  should be more bound than the $f_0$, as is the case in Refs.  \cite{raquel,gengvec}. Without entering the discussion here, the steps
that invalidated the approaches of Refs. \cite{gulmez} and \cite{guodis} were disclosed  in Refs. \cite{contra1} and \cite{contra2}, respectively, and at the same time an improved method was proposed which, after small refitting
in the cutoff used to regularize the loops, produced the $f_{2}(1270)$ as a bound $\rho\rho$ state, and very importantly,  produced couplings of the $f_2$ to $\rho\rho$ practically identical to those found in Refs.  \cite{raquel,gengvec}.
With this reassurance, we shall continue to use the couplings and $G$ functions of Refs. \cite{raquel,gengvec} which are needed as input for the calculations that we perform here.

Apart from the new perspective and  formalism discussed above, there is one more reason to retake this problem since new data are available. Then we shall  evaluate  the rate  for
$J/\psi \to \phi (\omega) f_0(1370) [f_0(1710)]$,  $J/\psi \to \phi (\omega) f_2(1270) [f'_2(1525)]$,  and $J/\psi \to K^{*0} \bar{K}^{*0}_2(1430)$ and from  there we shall evaluate ratios that we will
compare with experiment.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we explain how the $J/\psi$ first decays into three vector mesons and then a pair of them rescatter to generate dynamically the $f_0(1370)$,  $f_0(1710)$, $f_2(1270)$, $f'_2(1525)$, and $\bar{K}^{*0}_2(1430)$. We then construct seven ratios to eliminate unknown couplings and fix one remaining relative weight by fitting to four experimental known ratios and make predictions for three remaining ones in Sec. III. Followed by a short summary and outlook in Sec. IV.

\section{Formalism}
We study first the $J/\psi \to VVV$ transition for which we will have the operator $ {\cal C}\langle VVV \rangle$  mixed with  $ C \beta \langle VV \rangle \langle V \rangle$, with
$C$ a normalization constant  and $\beta$ a parameter  to fit to the data. The matrix containing the nonet of vector mesons can be written as,
\[
V_\mu=
  \begin{pmatrix}
    \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho^0
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\omega & \rho^+ & K^{*+}  \\
   \rho^-& -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\rho^0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\omega & K^{*0}\\
   K^{*-}&\bar{K}^{*0}&\phi
  \end{pmatrix}_\mu
\]
Then, we can construct the trace, $\langle V \cdot VV \rangle$, and look at the terms which accompany the $\omega$, $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$ mesons.

We find,
\begin{itemize}
  \item[1)] for $\omega$ meson
 \begin{eqnarray}  \label{eq:m1}
 \frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2}} \big\{ 3 \rho^0 \rho^0 + 3 \rho^+ \rho^- + 3 \rho^- \rho^+ + \omega\omega + 3  K^{*+}  K^{*-} + 3 K^{*0} \bar{K}^{*0} \big\} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
   \item[2)] for $\phi$  meson
  \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:m2}
  \phi \big\{ 3  K^{*+}  K^{*-} +  3 K^{*0} \bar{K}^{*0} +\phi\phi \big\}  \,,
  \end{eqnarray}
   \item[3)] for  $K^{*0}$   meson
     \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:m3}
K^{*0} \big\{ 3 \rho^+   K^{*-} -  \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}  \rho^0   \bar{K}^{*0} + \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\omega \bar{K}^{*0} + 3 \phi \bar{K}^{*0} \big\} \,.
  \end{eqnarray}
\end{itemize}

It is convenient to write these in terms of isospin states in order to use the information of Ref. \cite{gengvec}.  We have the isospin
multiplets $(-\rho^+,\rho^0,\rho^-)$,
$(K^{*+},{K}^{*0})$, $(\bar{K}^{*0},-K^{*-})$  and then
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:im1}
&|\rho\rho, I=0\rangle = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} |\rho^0 \rho^0 + \rho^+ \rho^- + \rho^- \rho^+ \rangle  \,;  \nonumber \\
&|\omega \omega, I=0\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\omega \omega \rangle \,; \quad  |\phi\phi, I=0\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |\phi\phi \rangle \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where we introduced the extra $1/\sqrt{2}$ factor of the unitary normalization for identical particles,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:im2}
|K^* \bar{K}^*, I=0\rangle =-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |K^{*+}K^{*-} + K^{*0}\bar{K}^{*0} \rangle  \,,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:im3}
|\rho K^*, I=1/2, I_3=1/2 \rangle =\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} | \rho^+ K^{*-}\rangle  -\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} | \rho^0 \bar{K}^{*0} \rangle  \,.
\end{eqnarray}
From Eqs.(\ref{eq:m1}-\ref{eq:m3}) and (\ref{eq:im1}-\ref{eq:im3}) we find the weight for $|\rho\rho, I=0\rangle$, $|K^* \bar{K}^*, I=0\rangle$,  $\omega\omega$
and $\phi\phi$ production  in isospin basis as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:h}
&h_{\omega \rho \rho}=-\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{2} \,; \quad h_{\omega K^* \bar{K}^*}=-3    \,; \quad   h_{\omega \omega \omega}=3   \,; \quad  h_{\omega \phi\phi}=0    \,,\nonumber \\
&h_{\phi \rho \rho}=0 \,; \quad h_{\phi K^* \bar{K}^*}=-3 \sqrt{2} \,; \quad   h_{\phi \phi\phi}= 3 \sqrt{2} \,; \quad    h_{ \phi \omega \omega}=0  \,, \nonumber \\
&h_{K^{*0} \rho \bar{K}^*}=3 \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \,; \quad h_{K^{*0} \omega \bar{K}^*}= \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}} \,;  \quad h_{K^{*0} \phi \bar{K}^*}=3 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the symmetry factor $n!$ for production of $n$ identical particles has been taken into account.

\subsection{Terms with $\langle VV \rangle \langle V \rangle$}
Alternatively, we can see what weight we get with the $\langle VV \rangle \langle V \rangle$  structure.  In this case we find that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:VVcV}
\langle VV \rangle \langle V \rangle \equiv (\sqrt{2} \omega +\phi) \big\{ \rho^0 \rho^0 + \rho^+ \rho^- + \rho^- \rho^+
+ \omega\omega + 2 K^{*+}K^{*-} + 2  K^{*0}\bar{K}^{*0}  +\phi\phi \big\} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
and  the weights are now
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:hp}
&h'_{\omega \rho \rho}=-\sqrt{3} \,; \quad h'_{\omega K^* \bar{K}^*}=-4    \,; \quad   h'_{\omega \omega \omega}=6   \,; \quad  h'_{\omega \phi\phi}=2    \,,\nonumber \\
&h'_{\phi \rho \rho}=-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \,; \quad h'_{\phi K^* \bar{K}^*}=-2 \sqrt{2} \,; \quad   h'_{\phi \phi\phi}= 3\sqrt{2} \,; \quad    h'_{ \phi \omega \omega}=\sqrt{2}  \,, \nonumber \\
&h'_{K^{*0} \rho \bar{K}^*}=0 \,; \quad h'_{K^{*0} \omega \bar{K}^*}= 2\sqrt{2} \,;  \quad h'_{K^{*0} \phi \bar{K}^*}=2 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Production of resonances }
The production of the resonances proceeds as described graphically  in Fig. \ref{figa}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig-a.pdf}~~~~\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig-b.pdf}
\caption{Mechanisms to produce the resonance $R$ together with a $\phi~(\omega)$ (a) or a  $K^{*0}$ (b).}
\label{figa}
\end{figure}

Analytically we can translate the mechanism of Fig. \ref{figa} into the transition matrix
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:t}
t_j={\cal C} \sum_{i} h_i \, G_i(M_{R_j}) \, g_{R_j,i} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $h_i$ are the weights calculated before for the different intermediate channels, $G_i$ is the loop function of the two intermediate mesons
and  $g_{R_j,i}$ are the couplings of the resonance $g_{R_j}$  to these channels $i$. This information  we obtain from Ref. \cite{gengvec} and  is shown in  Table  \ref{coupGs},
together with the same uncertainties in Table \ref{coupG} that were evaluated in \cite{alberdai}.

\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Couplings and values of the loop functions for the different channels at the resonance energy for the $f_{0}(1370)$ and $f_{0}(1710)$ states.}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\centering
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{l c| c cccc}
\hline\hline
 &&  &$\rho\rho$&$K^* \bar{K}^*$&$\omega\omega$&$\phi\phi$\\
[0.1ex]
\hline
 & &$g_{i} (\textrm{MeV})$ & ~$7914 - i 1048$ ~&~ $1210-i415$~ & ~$-39+i31$~ &~ $12+i24$ \\[1ex]
& & error $g_{i} (\%) $
& $4$ &$3$& $22$ & $22$ \\[0.1ex]
\raisebox{1.5ex}{}  &\raisebox{1.5ex}{$f_{0}(1370)$} &$G_{i} (\times 10^{-3})$
&  $-7.69+i1.72$ & $-4.13+i0.26$ & $-8.97+i0.87$ & $-0.63+i0.14$ \\[0.1ex]
& &error $G_{i} (\%)$
&$10$  &$29$&$42$  &$220$  \\[0.1ex]
 \hline
& &$g_{i} (\textrm{MeV})$ & $-1030+i1087 $ & $7127+i94$ & $-1764+i109$ & $-2494+i205$   \\[1ex]
 & & error $g_{i} (\%) $
& $12$ &$6$&$2$  & $2$  \\[0.1ex]
\raisebox{1.5ex}{} & \raisebox{1.5ex}{$f_{0}(1710)$}& $G_{i} (\times 10^{-3})$
&$-9.7+i6.18$ & $-7.68+i0.58$ & $-10.85+i8.19$ & $-2.16+i0.13$ \\[1ex]
& &error $G_{i} (\%)$
&$6$  &$17$&$19$  &$141$   \\[0.1ex]
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\label{coupGs}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Couplings and values of the loop functions for the different channels at the resonance energy for the $f_{2}(1270)$, $f'_{2}(1525)$ and ${\bar{K}}_{2}^{*\,0}(1430)$ states.}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\centering
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{l c| c ccccccc}
\hline\hline
 &&  &~~~~$\rho\rho$~~~~&~~~~$K^* \bar{K}^*$ ~~~~ &~~~~ $\omega\omega$ ~~~~&$\phi\phi$ ~~~~&~~~~ $\rho\bar{K}^*$~~ ~~&~~~~$\omega\bar{K}^{*\,0}$~~~~&~~~~$\phi\bar{K}^{*\,0}$~~~~\\
[0.1ex]
\hline
 & &$g_{i} (\textrm{MeV})$ &10551 & $4771$ & $-503$ & $-771$&0&0&0   \\[1ex]
 & & error $g_{i} (\%) $
&  $4$ & $3$ & $22$ & 22&0&0&0  \\[0.1ex]
\raisebox{1.5ex}{}  &\raisebox{1.5ex}{$f_{2}(1270)$} &$G_{i} (\times 10^{-3})$
&  $-4.74$ & $-3.00$ & $-4.97$ & 0.475&0&0&0  \\[0.1ex]
& &error $G_{i} (\%)$
&  $10$ & $29$ & $42$ & 220&0&0&0  \\[0.1ex]
 \hline
& &$g_{i} (\textrm{MeV})$ & $-2611$ & $9692$ & $-2707$ & $-4611$&0&0&0   \\[1ex]
 & & error $g_{i} (\%) $
&  $12$ & $6$ & $2$ & 2&0&0&0  \\[0.1ex]
\raisebox{1.5ex}{} & \raisebox{1.5ex}{$f^\prime_{2}(1525)$}& $G_{i} (\times 10^{-3})$
&$-8.67$ & $-4.98$ & $-9.63$ & $-0.710$&0&0&0 \\[1ex]
& &error $G_{i} (\%)$
&  $6$ & $17$ & $19$ & 141&0&0&0  \\[0.1ex]
\hline
& &$g_{i} (\textrm{MeV})$ & 0 & $0$ & 0 & 0&10613&2273&$-2906$   \\[1ex]
 & & error $g_{i} (\%) $
&  $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & 0&3&5&5  \\[0.1ex]
\raisebox{1.5ex}{} & \raisebox{1.5ex}{${\bar{K}}_{2}^{*\,0}(1430)$}& $G_{i} (\times 10^{-3})$
&0& $0$ & 0 & 0&$-6.41$&$-5.94$&$-2.70$ \\[1ex]
& &error $G_{i} (\%)$
&  $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & 0&12&19&43  \\[0.1ex]
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\label{coupG}
\end{table}

If we consider the $\langle VV \rangle \langle V \rangle$ structure, then we replace
\begin{eqnarray}
h_i  \rightarrow h_i + \beta h'_i\,.\label{eq:beta}
\end{eqnarray}
We have ignored the spin  structure  with the four vectors that we have in the production vertex. One can easily implement it using  the spin operators  of Refs. \cite{raquel,gengvec}.
However, it is unnecessary since  we only calculate  ratios between spin
$J = 2$ states and $J=0$  states independently, and factors coming from the spin structure  cancel in the ratios.

\section{Results and discussions}

For the evaluation of the $J/\psi$ decay into $\omega(\phi)$ and a molecular VV state, the standard formula for the width is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ga}
\Gamma=\frac{1}{8\pi}\frac{1}{M^2_{J/\psi}}\vert t\vert^2q\ ,
\end{equation}
with $q=\lambda^{1/2}(M^2_{J/\psi},M^2_R, M^2_V)/2M_{J/\psi}$, where $M_R$ stands for the mass of the VV resonance, and $M_V$ refers to the mass of the vector meson, $\omega, \phi$ or $K^{*0}$, involved in the $J/\psi$ decay. For the evaluation of $\Gamma$ and $q$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:ga}), we take the values of the masses of the resonances given in Ref. \cite{gengvec}, although, if the nominal masses of the resonances according to the PDG \cite{pdg} are used instead, numerical results barely change. The ratios,
\begin{eqnarray}
 &&R_1\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\phi f_2(1270)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\phi f'_2(1525)}}\quad R_2\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\omega f_2(1270)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\omega f'_2(1525)}}\nonumber\\
 &&R_3\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\omega f_2(1270)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\phi f_2(1270)}}\quad R_4\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to K^{*0}\bar{K}^{*0}_2(1430)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\omega f_2(1270)}}\ .\label{eq:ra1}
\end{eqnarray}
are estimated as it was done in Ref. \cite{alberdai}, but with the new weights given in Eqs. (\ref{eq:h}) and (\ref{eq:hp}), by using Eqs. (\ref{eq:t}), (\ref{eq:beta}) and (\ref{eq:ga}). In addition, we evaluate here three more ratios:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_5\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\omega f_0(1370)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\omega f_0(1710)}}\quad R_6\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to \phi f_{0}(1370)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\phi f_0(1710)}}\quad R_7\equiv\frac{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\omega f_0(1710)}}{\Gamma_{J/\psi\to\phi f_0(1710)}}\ .\label{eq:ra2}
\end{eqnarray}
First of all, the parameter $\beta$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:beta}) is fitted to get the experimental values of the ratios of Eqs. (\ref{eq:ra1}) and (\ref{eq:ra2}). These values are gathered in the last column of Table \ref{tab:ra}. In the PDG \cite{pdg}, and for the $J/\psi$ decay, we find experimental measurements for the decays involved in the ratios $R_i$, $i=1,3,4,7$. While for $R_2$, there is only an upper limit quoted  for $\Gamma(J/\psi\to \omega f'_2(1525))$ of $0.2\times 10^{-3}$, which has about $50$\% uncertainty. For this reason, we include in the fit experimental data on the four ratios for $i=1,3,4,7$, while those for $i=2,5,6$ become predictions of the theory.  We obtain, $\beta=0.32$, with the values of the ratios given in the fourth column of Table \ref{tab:ra}. The fit passes the Pearson's $\chi^2$ test at a $90$\% upper confidence limit. Then, $95$\% confidence intervals (CI) are estimated using two different methods:
(I) The parameter $\beta$ is kept fixed, and the ratios are evaluated by generating random numbers of $g_i$, $G_i$ assuming those to be normally distributed with the mean and standard deviation given by the central values and errors of these quantities as shown in Tables \ref{coupGs} and \ref{coupG}; (II) With bootstrap, by generating a new set of experimental data of these ratios by assuming these are normally distributed, as well as for the input variables, $g_i$ and $G_i$, and readjusting the $\beta$ parameter. From this method, the error of the $\beta$ parameter is estimated as the standard deviation obtained. We get $\beta=0.3\pm 0.3$. In both cases, (I) and (II), the size of the generated random sample is $n=1000$. Results are given in Table \ref{tab:ra}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Comparison of the $95$\% CI estimated by (I) fixing $\beta$ and (II) readjusting $\beta$ from a new random data sample as explained in the text. }
\vspace{0.3cm}
 \begin{center}
  \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
  \hline\hline
  Ratio&$\beta=0$&$\beta=1$&$\beta=0.32$&$CI_{95\%}^{(I)}$&$CI_{95\%}^{(II)}$&Exp.\\
  [0.1ex]
  \hline
   $R_1$&$0.087$&$0.22$&$0.14$&$(0.03,0.5)$&$(0.04,0.4)$&$0.4\pm 0.2$\\
   $R_2$&$1.37$&$0.56$&$0.86$&$(0.4,2.2)$&$(0.3,3.8)$&$>21\pm 11$\\
   $R_3$&$10.24$&$4.76$&$6.88$&$(4.0,17.5)$&$(3.9,16.2)$&$13\pm 3$\\
   $R_4$&$1.76$&$0.59$&$1.13$&$(0.6,2.2)$&$(0.8,1.5)$&$1.1\pm 0.2$\\
   $R_5$&$0.85$&$0.38$&$0.57$&$(0.3,1.1)$&$(0.3,1.5)$&-\\
   $R_6$&$0.010$&$0.08$&$0.034$&$(0.01,0.1)$&$(0.001,0.1)$&-\\
   $R_7$&$0.84$&$1.81$&$1.24$&$(0.8,2.5)$&$(0.5,2.4)$&$1.3\pm 0.4$\\
   \hline\hline
  \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
 \label{tab:ra}
\end{table}
For comparison, we also show the values of the ratios for $\beta=0$ and $1$, in the second and third column of this table. In both methods, (I) and (II), the $95$\% CI obtained are comparable.  For the sample size used here, the 0.5 quantiles obtained are almost identical to the values of the ratios for $\beta=0.32$ in both methods, indicating that the sample is large enough in the present problem, and we omit those in the table.

The experimental values fall inside the $95$\% CI for the ratios for $i=1,3,4,7$, and also these come out similar to those of Table 7 in Ref. \cite{alberdai}, showing a good agreement between theory and experiment, and also with the theory used in Ref. \cite{alberdai}. For the ratio $R_2$,  we obtain a value below the experimental lower  limit, for which we are inclined to blame the unprecise determination of the partial decay rate $\Gamma[J/\psi\to \omega f'_2(1525)]$.

The results obtained here for the ratios $i=1,3,4$ support the molecular VV nature of the tensor resonances, $f_2'(1270)$, $f_2'(1525)$ and $K^*_2(1430)$, investigated in Refs. \cite{raquel,gengvec}. The new ratio $R_7$ studied here is in perfect agreement with experiment, also  supporting the vector-vector nature of the scalar $f_0(1710)$.

Although, in principle, different values of $\beta$ rather than that obtained in the fit, $0.32$, are possible, since the ratios obtained in the second and third columns are close or inside the $95$ \% CI given, $\beta=1$ seems to be an unlikely situation for $R_4$, according to the theory, because it is out of the intervals (I) and (II). On the contrary, the experimental value for $R_3$ seems to favor small values of $\beta$. However, these more extreme situations cannot be rejected with total confidence in the study done here, which favors an admixture of both terms, $\langle VVV\rangle$ and $\langle VV\rangle\langle V\rangle$. In any case, the results shown here for the four ratios $i=1,3,4,7$ provide further support to the molecular interpretation of the $f_2(1270),f_2'(1525),\bar{K}^*_2(1430)$ and $f_0(1710)$ of Refs. \cite{raquel,gengvec}. The predictions for the ratios $i=5,6$ involving the scalar resonances $f_0(1370)$ and $f_0(1710)$ are also given in Table \ref{tab:ra}, where $R_6$ turns out to be very small, indicating that the $J/\psi\to \phi f_0(1370)$ decay is suppressed. This can be easily understood in terms of the dominant term in Eq. (2), since the pair of vectors that create the $f_0(1370)$ are the $K^* \bar{K}^*$ and $\phi\phi$, but not $\rho\rho$ which is the main building block of the $f_0(1370)$ \cite{raquel,gengvec}.
\section{Summary and outlook}

    We have correlated different decays of the $J/\psi$ meson, like $J/\psi \to \phi (\omega) f_0(1370) [f_0(1710)]$,  $J/\psi \to \phi (\omega) f_2(1270) [f'_2(1525)]$,  and $J/\psi \to K^{*0} \bar{K}^{*0}_2(1430)$. These decay processes have in common the production of a vector meson together with some $f_0$, $f_2$, $K_2$ resonances, which in previous works have been shown to be dynamically generated from the vector-vector interaction.  The assumptions made are very basic, starting from the $J/\psi$, being a $c \bar c$ state, is a singlet of SU(3), in the same way as a $s \bar s$ state is a singlet of isospin SU(2). The nature of these resonances as dynamically generated implies that the production process begins by the  $J/\psi$ decaying into three vectors, followed by the interaction of a VV pair that leads to the formation of these resoanances.  Based on information gathered from related reactions, we find that the two basic SU(3) invariant structures that can be made from three vector SU(3) matrices, and are relevant to these reactions,  are $\langle VVV\rangle$ and $\langle V\rangle \langle VV\rangle$, with the first structure being dominant. We determine seven independent ratios that can be made with these decay rates and fit the strength of the $\langle V\rangle \langle VV\rangle$ structure versus the $\langle VVV\rangle$ one. We find indeed a relative strength of this term of 0.3. By means of this only parameter we can obtain good results compared to experiment for four ratios. Two extra ratios have no data to compare, and hence are genuine predictions of the theory, and one ratio disagrees with the data, for which tentatively we blame the lack of experimental information on the $J/\psi \to \omega f'_2(1525)$ decay, with only upper bound known. While certainly future measurements of the magnitudes involved in this ratio are most welcome, the overall agreement found with most data, with rates that are quite different to each other, speaks much in favor of the picture where these resonances are dynamically generated. The measurement of the rates needed to determine the two predictions for which there is no data at present would provide a further test for this idea and should be most welcome.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
 L.R.D. and L.S.G acknowledge supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11975009, 11575076, 11735003, 11975041). R.M. and E.O. acknowledge the hospitality of Beihang University where this work was initiated. This work is partly supported by the Talento Program of the Community of Madrid and the Complutense University of Madrid, under the project with Ref. 2018-T1/TIC-11167, and by the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad and European FEDER funds under Contracts No. FIS2017-84038-C2-1-P B
and No. FIS2017-84038-C2-2-P B, and the Generalitat Valenciana in the program Prometeo II-2014/068, and
the project Severo Ochoa of IFIC, SEV-2014-0398 (EO).


\section{Introduction}
The  ``Doomsday Argument'' (Carter 1983, Gott 1993, Leslie 1996)  applies a kind of Copernican
principle that today's humankind does not occupy any special place in our long-term biological time span.
With this hypothesis -- uniform random \emph{now}  -- there is only one parameter to be estimated,
namely the total number $N$  of individuals  who will ever exist.  For any given size  $N$, this argument
leads to a statistical confidence region for our future prospects, based entirely on the cumulative rank $R$
of individuals as of today: in only 1\% of trial universes under this hypothesis would inhabitants find
$R<0.01 N$;  99\% of all such trial runs would have $R>0.01 N$.  Today our rank  $R \approx 10^{11}$, a
reasonable finding if $N=2 \times 10^{11}$ or even $10^{12}$.  So we should be  99\% confident that $N <10^{13}$,
and doomsday is highly likely in the not-too-distant future.

A concise statement of the DA was posed by John Leslie (1996) p.1:

\begin{quote}
    ``We ought to have some reluctance to believe that we are very exceptionally early,
    for instance in the earliest 0.001 percent, among all humans who have ever lived.''
 \end{quote}

Its strengths and weaknesses have been discussed by many authors (Dieks 1992,
Kopf et al 1994, Leslie 1996, Hanson 1998, Korb and Oliver 1998, Oliver and Korb 1998,
Bostrom 1999, Monton and Rousch 2001, Olum 2002, Sober 2003, Leslie 2008,
Leslie 2010,  Gelman and Robert 2013,  Northcott 2016,  McCutcheon 2018);
here I shall simply fix on what  I see as its two major errors.

\section{The Mathematical Flaws}
To begin, where are we now?  Our present rank $R$ is about $10^{11}$ as I show in Figure 1 below.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
     \includegraphics{population3.pdf}
     \caption{Cumulative number of persons versus time, worldwide}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}
The earliest DAs applied a frequentist probability method to this rank.  Given $N$, there is only one chance in a
million to have drawn a rank $R < 10^{-6} N$. True! But the frequentist DA then goes on to invert that,
concluding that given an observed $R$, there is only one chance in a million that $N>10^6 R$,
a circular argument.

\pagebreak

Bayesian inference avoids this problem.
In Figure 2, I contrast frequentist vs. Bayesian inference by mapping how conditional probability depends on
population size $N$ and rank $R$ within that population.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
     \includegraphics{probgrid4.pdf}
     \caption{Map of conditional probability $P(R \vert N)$.  }
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The frequentist view (vertical blue band) is a single column in this diagram:  given a cohort size $N$, the probability of
each ranked individual is $1/N$, equal for all ranks.  Being finite, it has simple confidence regions: you are 99\%
confident of not drawing a first percentile number.  The Bayesian view (red horizontal band) is a single row in this
diagram: we have drawn a 7, so what may we infer from this?  \emph{This is no longer a finite problem.} If all $N$ values
have equal \emph{a priori} probabilities, we gather a likelihood of 1/7 from $N=7$, plus 1/8 from $N=8$, plus
1/9 from $N=9$, etc., all the way to infinity.    From this harmonic series we may now extract our composite hypotheses
(for example, QD vs DD) for comparison.  Any decade above the observed rank contributes likelihood 2.303.
The ratio of any pair of decades above the observed rank is 1.
This is Rev. Bayes way of telling us that beyond our rank $R$, there is  no information here about the size of our
cohort from a single sample.

I will now apply Bayesian inference by decomposing the universe of possibilities using two numbers.
Let each such civilization terminate with a finite cumulative number of members $N$, and for each
civilization let each member be assigned a birth rank $R$ with $1<=R<=N$.  Next I will apply the
clueless assumption: my own personal rank $R$ is uniformly distributed within the range $1<=R<=N$,
and given $N$, my particular probability of having any one ticket number is $1/N$.

Finally I will adopt logarithmic scoring (McCutcheon 2019) and calculate the Bayes relative likelihood
of two classes of futures:  QuickDoom ``QD''  $10^{11}<N<10^{12}$, versus DistantDoom ``DD'' with
$10^{17}<N<10^{18}$.  Here I must distinguish two vastly different flavors of prior probability, although
each is 1.00 when there is no prior information:
\begin{itemize}
    \item  $p(N)$ (small $p$) the prior probability of a simple hypothesis: a single $N$ value;
    \item  $P(G)$ (big $P$) the prior probability of composite hypothesis: a group $G$ of $N$ values.
\end{itemize}
 The groups QD and DD have a relative likelihood:
\begin{align}
    \frac{L(QD)}{L(DD)} = \frac{P(QD) \cdot \sum_{10^{11}}^{10^{12}} \frac{1}{N} }{P(DD) \cdot \sum_{10^{17}}^{10^{18}} \frac{1}{N} }
       = \frac{P(QD)}{P(DD)}
\end{align}
For decade bins, each sum is 2.303 and they cancel.  The relative likelihood is just the ratio of our priors!
Knowing only my rank, all I know about my cohort size is that it  exceeds my rank. Small, large: can't tell.

The more recent DA formulations use Bayesian inference, as they should, but with flaws
(Oliver and Korb 1998 examine many of these).
The simplest of the flawed Bayesian DA formulations is to compare one simple hypothesis,
say QD=$10^{12}$ exactly, against  another simple hypothesis, say DD=$10^{18}$ exactly.
No sums needed:
\begin{align}
    \frac{L(QD)}{L(DD)} = \frac{p(QD) \cdot P(R \vert QD) }{p(DD) \cdot P(R \vert DD) }
       = 10^6 \cdot  \frac{p(QD)}{p(DD)}
\end{align}
For very reasonable equal priors, this tells us that QD is a million times more likely than DD.
Convincing, until you ask about the likelihood contributions from the $10^{12}$ nearby neighbors of QD
and the $10^{18}$ nearby neighbors of DD.  Shouldn't they count, as well?

One faulty way to include those neighbors is to average them over their respective realms.  To this I would
reply that averaging is inappropriate:  likelihoods add since each added simple hypothesis contributes
an additional way to obtain the observed rank.

Another faulty way to include those neighbors is to assume that the prior of each future $N$ is known in
advance from some previous measurement, and was (say) found to be $p(N)=1/N.$   This prior can then be
installed into the composite summations, eliminating the group priors $P(X)$ in equation 1.  This gives:
\begin{align}
    \frac{L(QD)}{L(DD)} = \frac{ \sum_{10^{11}}^{10^{12}} \frac{1}{N^2} }{\sum_{10^{17}}^{10^{18}} \frac{1}{N^2} }
       = \frac{1/10^{11}  \;  - \;   1/10^{12} }{1/10^{17} \;   - \;  1/10^{18}} =  10^6.
\end{align}
So QD is a million times more likely than DD, exactly what we put in with the priors. You can install
any preconceived priors, run the numbers, and get just what you installed.

My view is that \emph{this}  DA misunderstands priors.  The Bayesian process is to acknowledge that
previous information exists about our two chosen alternative hypotheses.  From those priors
we use conditional probabilities to update our opinion in view of new data.  Since there is no prior
information on what $N$ might be, we are obliged to regard all $p(N)$ values as equal, returning
us to equation 1.

\subsection*{The UrnFiller vs the UrnGuesser}
The UrnFiller (let's call her Jill) has two Urns (she calls them A and B) and into A she puts ten balls,
numbered 1 through 10, and stirs them up.   Into B she puts 100 balls, numbered 1 to 100, and stirs them up.
She is good at probability, and calculates that the chances of  some future guesser will draw a 7 is
$P=0.5*0.1+0.5*0.01=0.055$ exactly: two possible choices between urns and then 1/10 or 1/100.
She is right.  This is pure frequentist probability; no Bayesian inference needed.

The UrnGuesser (let's call him Kent)  has a different problem.  He knows that Jill never lies, and
is told the urns contain 10 and 100 balls. The urns of course look exactly the same.   He picks an urn.
He is not allowed to weigh it.   He picks a ball.   It is 7.  Now what? There was a guaranteed 7 in each urn!
So he has learned  nothing about his choice of urns.  Might have been the heavy urn, or the light urn.
(Had he picked a 61, he would have nailed it,  but alas that didn't happen.)

The UrnGuesser has learned about Bayesian inference, so applies it like this, to compare
his relative likelihoods of two narrow categories Urn10 versus Urn100:
\begin{align}
    \frac{L(10)}{L(100)} = \frac{p(10) * P(7 |10) }{p(100) * P(7 | 100)} = \frac{p(10) * 0.1}{p(100) * 0.01}
\end{align}
With this, he argues that it is ten times more likely that his chosen urn was the 10 than the 100. Those two sevens
are ten times more dilute among 100 than they are under 10.  Being dilute means they are not going to be found
so often.  A universe of ball-pickers should agree.  Between these two narrow categories, Bayesian inference gives us
perfect agreement with the UrnFiller's frequentist conclusion because either is the ratio of the two conditional
probabilities.  Problem Solved. QED.  End of discussion.

But wait!  What if  \textit{what if there is only one urn}?  And what if \textit{the UrnFiller tells us nothing about N}?
The UrnGuesser picks a ball.   It is a 7.   How many balls were in the urn?
This is a different problem, not a simple choice between two completely
defined alternative narrow hypotheses, but between members of an infinite continuum of possible urns.  It is this switch that
forces us to abandon frequentist probability and adopt Bayesian likelihood methods.

The general schema is to identify two groups of distinct, non-overlapping  hypotheses, add up the conditional
probabilities of each simple hypothesis in each group, and compare their likelihoods.  Like this:
\begin{align}
    \frac{L(A)}{L(B)} = \frac{\Sigma [p(A) \cdot P(7 |A)] }{\Sigma [p(B) \cdot P(7 | B)] }
\end{align}
To do this we must first decide what our groups will be. Having found a seven, it is certain that there were at
least seven balls, but beyond that, the sky's the limit.  Let's create two alternative composite hypotheses:
H70 spanning $7<N<70$ versus  H700 spanning $70<N<700$.

For each $N$, before drawing any balls, the conditional probability of getting a 7 is simply $1/N$.  Since we
have no reason to prefer one  $N$ value over another,  the \emph{a priori} factors are all 1, and vanish.
Our  integrated conditionals are just $ln(10) = 2.303$ in both cases.   So the likelihoods of the two
cases are equal.  We have no reason to prefer one decade over the other.

Next, after drawing one ball, all decade spans above its rank $R$ remain equal. The \emph{a priori}
factors are now zero for $N<R$, and remain 2.303 for decades above $R$, so the likelihood ratio is 1.0 for all test
decades beyond $R$.    From one sample we learn  only that we may rule out $N<R$, which we knew already.
Again, we have no reason to prefer one decade over the other, provided that both decades lie beyond $R$.
We still have no upper bound on the size of our cohort.  In other words drawing the first sample
eliminates the smaller $N$ but does not affect the larger $N$ possibilities.

\subsection*{The Panzer Battle Commander vs the Allied Defense Commander}
Our PBC knows he has fielded 1000 tanks and (unfortunately for him) each tank carries its serial number, 1...1000.
If his tank \#77 were  captured in battle, that was in his first decile, but no surprise: it had to be in some decile, and all
ten deciles are equally probable.  But if there were a second capture, say tank \#34, also in the first decile, that
would be improbable: only a 10\%  that two captures would share a common bin. Extending this, the probability
of $N$ captures from the first decile is $10^{-N}$, and the probability of $N$ captures all from a common
decile is $10^{1-N}$.

Our ADC faces a very different problem.   He does not know $N$.   Had he captured a usefully large number
$K$ of tanks and found a maximum serial number $M$, he would reasonably suppose that his captures
span almost the entire production run and figure that $N$ is just a bit bigger than his $M$.
In the large-$K$ approximation, he would write $ \langle N \rangle \simeq M + AverageGap = M+M/K. $
However, this method fails for small $K$ (see Wikipedia 2019): the variance in  the $\langle N \rangle $
estimator is infinite for $K<=3$;  indeed the mean $ \langle N \rangle$ is infinite if $K<=2$.
One tank tells him squat about the size of its cohort.

\subsection*{My Reply to John Leslie's ``Objection f''}
In his thoughtful compendium of views on the DA, Leslie (1996, page 23) warns us:

\begin{quote}
 ``Don't object that there would be more chances of being born into a long-lasting human race, and that
 these would precisely compensate for being born early in the history of that race.  The answer to this
 is that there would be nothing automatically improbable in being in a short-lasting human race.
 (Imagine that only ten people will ever have been born. Ought you to be specially surprised at finding
 yourself among the ten?  No, for only those who are born can ever find themselves as anything.)''
\end{quote}

My view is that this objection conflates a fact with a distribution:

\emph{Draw one sample.}  Its observed rank is $R$.  Now $R$ has graduated
from being a distributed statistic to being a fact. We now have a firm lower limit on the population size
$N>=R$, but still no upper limit.  For each remaining unobserved sample of rank $M$ we know $M \neq R$ and
we can now write $P(M \vert N) = 1/(N-1)$:  $M$ remains uniformly distributed on $N$ except for the point $M=R$.
Yes, having drawn one sample, you still have a 50/50 chance
of being in the big urn cohort vs. the small urn cohort since one sample tells you nothing about the size of your
cohort.   But the $1/N$ or $1/(N-1)$ densities continue to apply to the remaining draws as yet unseen.

My major point is that to adopt a single $N$, then obtain (say) a 99\% confidence region for $R$, then from our
observed $R$ to regard that $100 \times R$ as a 99\% confidence maximum on $N$, is a circular argument.
It must be replaced with a confidence region obtained from Bayesian inference, and with just one sample that
region has no upper limit.

\section{The Uniformity Flaw}
Figure 3 presents a linear pseudo-Copernican sequence of all humanity (discussed for example by Cirkovic and
Balbi 2019).  (I term this pseudo-Copernican because I doubt that Copernicus himself would conflate the
manifest growth in human thought with the spatial homogeneity of the universe.)
Suppose there are ten trillion  ($10^{13}$) individuals, ranked by birth.   Uniformly throughout, people
formulate ideas randomly (spots).   Any idea can appear at any time, without any particular historical relationship
to the many other ideas represented in the diagram.  Some are good ideas, some are bad. One of them (red) might
be the Doomsday Argument.
\begin{figure}[ht]
 \begin{center}
     \includegraphics{timelineLinear.pdf}
         \caption{A cartoon illustrating a statistically uniform distribution of people and their ideas. }
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

In contrast, I show in Figure 4 a growth of knowledge on a logarithmic scale.  I do not regard ideas as unrelated.
They build on previous ideas; they become confirmed or modified or rejected.
\begin{figure}[ht]
 \begin{center}
     \includegraphics{timelineLog.pdf}
         \caption{Logarithmic scale cartoon showing the growth of knowledge as relationships between
         previous ideas. }
 \end{center}
\end{figure}
So, I plot knowledge as a curve of networked ideas enjoying a mostly steady rise.
In particular, the discovery of the DA depends on
writing, mathematics, thought experiments, and probability\footnote{\begin{small}This
rise need not depend on any improvements in human intelligence. Gould and Eldredge (1977)  describe
evolutionary trends as punctuated equilibria: long periods without significant genomic change, interrupted
by relatively rapid shifts in their properties.  Quite likely, human intelligence has followed this \emph{punk eek}
pattern. Bostrom (2009) compares long-term static intelligence versus various slow and rapid improvements.
One extreme is the singularity (Ulam 1958; Good 1965; Vinge 1993; Sandberg 2009) that propels human
capabilities far beyond those experienced today.  My take on these possibilities is that --- even without them ---
growth in aggregate human knowledge will assure  a much improved likelihood of overcoming future crises.
\end{small}}.   At our present rank we have recently
entered the Zone: we have invented the DA, we are discussing it, and we may soon outgrow it.

A dedicated Doomsdayist would immediately object that our Zone is at rank $R\simeq10^{11}$ because that is reasonably
situated among $10^{11}..10^{12}$ civilizations, whereas long-lived Distant Doom civilizations, (say) those with $R \simeq 10^{17}$,
would statistically be unlikely to find their Zones around $10^{11}$: they are far more likely to be encountered at
random locations throughout their much larger spans.

To this, I have two responses.  First, the Zone is systematic, not random, and its arrival rank is set by the historical development of
essentials like writing, teaching, and mathematics, all of which come from the past. They are utterly independent of
future developments. Statistical methods do not apply.  Second, it is an error to apply conditional probability
$P(R \vert N)$ to a question demanding inferential likelihood $L(N \vert R)$.

\section{Conclusion}
Two extreme cases -- a modestly future-human and an outrageously future- or post-human
scenarios --- cannot be mathematically distinguished by knowing only our present population size.
Humanity's passenger train definitely starts out finite in size, but might outgrow
any such limit as time progresses.

\emph{Acknowledgment:}  I gratefully acknowledge having illuminating discussions with
John Leslie and Ken Olum on the many facets of the DA.  My errors are of course mine alone.

\section*{References}

Bostrom, N., "The Doomsday Argument is Alive and Kicking," Mind v.108, pp.539-550 (1999).

Bostrom, N., "Future of Humanity," New Waves in Philosophy of Technology, eds.
Jan-Kyrre Berg Olsen, Evan Selinger, and Soren Riis (New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2009).

Carter, B. "The anthropic principle and its implications for biological evolution," Phil. Trans. Royal Soc
London A310, pp.347-363 (1983).

Cirkovic, M. M., and Balbi, A., "Copernicanism and the typicality in time,"  IJA (2019).

Dieks, D., "Doomsday --- or: the Dangers of Statistics,", Philosophical Quarterly v.42, Issue 166, pp.78-84 (1992).

Gelman A. and Robert C.P., "The Perceived Absurdity of Bayesian Inference," Amer. Stat. Assoc. v.67 No.1, pp.1-5 (2013).

Good, I.J., "Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine", Advances in Computers, vol. 6 (1965).

Gott, J.R., "Implications of the Copernican Principle for our future prospects," Nature v.363, 27 (1993).

Gould, S.J., and Eldredge, N., "Punctuated equilibria," Paleobiology v3 No.2, pp.115-151, (1977).

Hanson, R., "Critiquing the Doomsday Argument," (1998), https://web.archive.org

Kopf, T., Krtous, P., and Page, D., "Too Soon for Doom Gloom?" arXiv 9407002 (1994).

Korb, K.B., and Oliver, J., "A Refutation of the Doomsday Argument," Mind v.107 pp.403-410 (1998).

Leslie, J., "The End of the World," London and New York: Routledge, (1996).

Leslie, J.., "Infinitely Long Afterlives and the Doomsday Argument?," Philosophy Vol.83 No.326 pp.519-524 (2008).

Leslie, J., "Risk that Humans will soon be extinct,"  Philosophy v85 No.4 (2010).

McCutcheon, R., "What, Precisely, is Carter's Doomsday Argument?" https://philpapers.org, (2018)

McCutcheon, R., "In Favor of Logarithmic Scoring," Phil. Sci. v86 No.32  286-303 (2019)

Monton B. and Roush S., "Gott's Doomsday Argument,"  https://philpapers.org (2001).

Northcott, R., "A Dilemma for the Doomsday Argument," https://philpapers.org (2016).

Oliver, J. J., and Korb,  "A Bayesian Analysis of the Doomsday Argument,"  Monash U. (1998).

Olum, K., "The Doomsday Argument and the Number of Possible Observers," arXiv gr-qc-0009081 (2001)
and Phil.Quarterly v.52 No.207 pp.164-184 (2002).

Sandberg, A., "An Overview of Models of the Technological Singularity," agi-conf.org, (2009).

Sober, E., "An Empirical Critique of Two Versions Of The Doomsday Argument," Synthese v.135 (2003).

Ulam, S., "Tribute to John von Neumann,"" Bull.Amer.Math.Soc. v64 No.3 pp1-49 (1958)

Vinge, V., "The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era,"
NASA Publication CP-10129 (1993).

Wikipedia,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-tank-problem (2019)

\end{document}


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

In this paper some aspects of the exclusive jet measurement at the LHC are discussed. Exclusive jet production (see Feynman diagram in Figure \ref{fig:EXC}) is a very rare and interesting
process, which is still quite poorly known\cite{exc_jets_general}. It can be described by:
\begin{itemize}
\item two jets: usually produced centrally (at small rapidity),
\item two protons: scattered at small angles (few hundreds $\mu$rad from the beam axis),
\item rapidity gap between the central system and the scattered protons.
\end{itemize}
A term ``exclusivity'' means that all final state particles can be measured. This implies a strong relation of the kinematics of the central state and the scattered protons. High luminosity at the LHC gives a hope to significantly measure properties of the exclusive jet production in ATLAS \cite{ATLAS} and CMS/TOTEM \cite{CMS, TOTEM} experiments. In this paper a stress will be put on the ATLAS detector but the conclusions should remain valid also for CMS.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{wykresy/fey1}
\caption{Leading Feynman diagram of the exclusive jet production: two gluon jets, two scattered protons and a presence of a ``screening'' gluon to make exchange colourless.}
\label{fig:EXC}
\end{figure}

Jets can be detected by the ATLAS central detector but the forward scattered protons escape its acceptance region through the beam pipe opening. This underlines a need for a dedicated set of detectors installed far away from the interaction point. For the ATLAS interaction point (IP1) these are the ATLAS Forward Proton (AFP) \cite{AFP} detectors.

AFP system consists of two Roman pot stations (Near and Far) on each side of ATLAS. They are located symmetrically on both sides of the IP1 at the distance of about 210 m from it. The detectors are horizontally inserted into the LHC beam-pipe up to few millimetres from the beam. Detectors located on the ATLAS C side are positioned in the vicinity of  beam 1 whereas the ones on the A side close to beam~2. Each station contains four Silicon Tracker planes (SiT), which provide a precise measurement of the scattered proton trajectory position (spatial resolution of a single plane was measured to be about  6 $\mu$m  and about 30 $\mu$m in $x$ and $y$
respectively \cite{AFP_testbeam}). Far stations host also the Time of Flight (ToF) detectors. The main goal of ToF modules is to reduce the backgrounds, via the measurement of the arrival time of a proton combined with the interaction vertex reconstruction. The timing resolution is expected to be of about 30 ps \cite{AFP_testbeam}.

For obvious reasons the LHC magnetic lattice influences the scattered proton trajectory and one has to take into account the following elements:
\begin{itemize}
  \item two dipole magnets (D1-D2) for beam separation (bending),
  \item five quadrupole magnets (Q1-Q5) for beam focusing,
  \item two collimators (TCL4, TCL5) for magnet protection.
\end{itemize}
Settings of these elements, called the accelerator optics, come from  the requirements of the experiments in terms of luminosity and  the LHC machine protection and may differ between the runs. The properties of various LHC optics are discussed in Ref. \cite{opt}.gnuplot plot sqrt from column in bash script

In order to fulfil the exclusivity criteria all stable particles should be measured. For the exclusive jet production, both scattered protons need to be within the AFP acceptance \cite{acceptance}. It means that the energy of the jet system is expected to be between about 300 and 1300 GeV. As was shown in \textit{e.g.} Ref. \cite{ATLAS_jets}, the cross section for such jets is expected to be about few $\mu$b. This means taking the data in the high pile-up conditions, \textit{i.e.} in a situation when multiple $pp$ interactions occur during one bunch crossing.

As was discussed in \cite{ATLAS_EXC_Jets}, the main gnuplot plot sqrt from column in bash scriptbackgrounds for the exclusive jet production are due to a non-diffractive and single diffractive processes overlaid with scattered protons originating from the minimum-bias pile-up events. The most common backgrounds are shown in Figure \ref{BG}.

\begin{figure}[h!]\centering
\subfloat[\label{1bg}]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{wykresy/1}}
\subfloat[\label{2bg}]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{wykresy/2}}
\subfloat[\label{3bg}]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{wykresy/3}}
\subfloat[\label{4bg}]{\includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{wykresy/4}}
\caption{Backgrounds to the exclusive jet production: (a) non-diffractive jets + 2 protons from 2 different pile-up vertices, (b) non-diffractive jets + 2 protons from the same pile-up vertex, (c) single diffractive jets + proton from pile-up, (d) single diffractive jets + proton from pile-up.}
\label{BG}
\end{figure}

The cross-section for the non-diffractive jet production is the highest one among the processes with a hard scale -- the jets are copiously produced in ATLAS. Due to the limited trigger and data acquisition bandwidths not all of these events can be saved for analysis. In ATLAS, events are selected at two trigger steps called level-1 (L1) and High Level Trigger (HLT)\cite{ATLAS}. Due to the storage limitation certain thresholds were introduced at the L1 and HLT stages. Events not fulfilling these criteria are prescaled, \textit{i.e.} only a fraction of them is saved. For jets, the selection is usually based on the minimum transverse momentum, (p$_T$), of a  jet. For data taken in years 2015-2018 (the so-called Run2 period) these thresholds were set to 100 GeV at L1 and about 440 GeV at HLT \cite{ATLAS_jets}. For the future data taking (starting from Run3), these limits may be even higher. Since the cross-section for exclusive jets is very small and steeply falling with increasing jet p$_T$, it is necessary to accept all events being within the detector acceptance. Since, as was discussed above, this  results in jets with p$_T$ staring from 150 GeV, a dedicated trigger algorithm has to be used. In the this paper the focus will be on the HLT items.

Considered algorithm consists of two parts:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item comparison of the ``proton'' position computed from the di-jet system kinematics to a real proton position as registered in AFP,
  \item comparison of the jet vertex and the one reconstructed using the AFP Time-of-Flight system.
\end{enumerate}

The idea of the first part is to match the position of ``proton'' which is calculated using the proton properties inferred from the jet kinematics to that of the proton actually registered in the AFP station. The jet observables ($p_T$, energy, rapidity and azimuthal angle) are measured by ATLAS. From all jets in the event two with the highest $p_T$ are selected. At this step the vertex is not requited as it is expected that high $p_T$ jets should not originate from two independent vertices.

Using the jet observables the di-jet system mass ($M_{jj}$) and rapidity ($y_{jj}$) are computed. Next, a relative energy loss ($\xi_{A,C}$) of a proton scattered into the ATLAS A/C hemisphere is calculated as:
$$\xi_{A,C}=\exp(\pm y_{jj}) \frac{M_{jj}}{2 E_{beam}}.$$
The estimated properties of a hypothetical scattered proton are used to simulate its transport through the LHC magnetic lattice and to calculate its trajectory position in the AFP station. Next, this hypothetical position ($p_{jet}$) and the registered one ($p_{proton}$) are compared. If the predicted position is close enough to the measured one, the event is accepted by the trigger. In presented work the default selection criteria used in the current ATLAS trigger algorithm were chosen. It was required that the difference between the two positions in $x$($y$) direction are smaller than 2(2.5) mm and the radius $R = \sqrt{(p^{x}_{proton} - p^{x}_{jet})^2 + (p^{y}_{proton} - p^{y}_{jet})^2} < 2$ mm. Therefore, the effective cut is the one on the radius. These criteria could be optimized to reject as much of the background as possible while keeping  majority of the signal.

The second part of the exclusive jet trigger uses the comparison of the interaction vertex position calculated from  the AFP measured times of flight of the scattered protons and that of the jet vertex reconstructed in ATLAS. A ``proton vertex'' can be computed as: $Z_p=(t_A - t_C)\frac{c}{2}$ and then compared to the jet system related one: $Z_p - z_{jet}$.

The first part of this trigger algorithm strongly depends on the changes of the  LHC optics or the jets kinematics. In this paper, a discussion about the influence of the LHC optics and presence of pile-up is presented.

\section{Impact of the LHC Optics}

In order to collect a large amount of data required  by physics analysis, the LHC tries to maximize the luminosity. There are few methods to achieve this. One uses the relation of the betatron function at IP, ($\beta^*$), and the instantaneous luminosity. The luminosity is inverse proportional to the $\beta^*$ value. Another method hinge on the crossing angle levelling ($\theta_C$). It is an angle at which the beams are crossing at the interaction point\footnote{In this paper the ``crossing angle'' is denoted as and angle between the nominal $z$ beam axis and the $z$ direction of the beam. In literature such angle is sometimes called ``half crossing angle''.}. The range of possible changes is limited by the long range beam-beam separation (required to ensure good beam lifetimes) and by the mechanical aperture of the beam pipe. In order to keep the luminosity high, the LHC decided to adjust both $\beta^*$ and $\theta_C$ during the data taking.

In order to study the levelling influence on the reconstruction of the proton position two $\beta^*$ values, typically used during Run2, were considered: $\beta^*=30$ cm and $\beta^*=40$ cm. It was checked that the resulting proton positions for a given crossing angle are exactly the same. Therefore, all further analysis are done only for $\beta^*=30$~cm.

In contrast to the $\beta^*$ levelling, a significant differences are observed while applying a change of $\theta_C$. This is clearly visible in Figure \ref{proton_position} (left) where the proton positions in the AFP for the three different values of the crossing angle (140, 160 and 180 $\mu rad$) are shown. Except from the focal point located around $x_{AFP} = -4$ mm, which is expected to be independent of the machine optics\cite{dynam_alg_metod}, the change of $\theta_C$ moves the protons along $y$-axis. At -20~mm from the beam centre $(0,0)$, which is typically an edge of the AFP detector acceptance at high mass, the difference is about few millimetres. This shows the needed to make trigger algorithm optics-dependent.

\begin{figure}[ht]\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{wykresy/predictions}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{wykresy/AFP_multiplicity_mu}
\caption{\textbf{Left:} proton position in the AFP detector for $\beta^*$=30 cm and various values of crossing angle: 140, 160 and 180 $\mu$rad. \textbf{Right:} proton multiplicity in the AFP detector for various pile-up conditions. The probability of registering a minimum-bias
proton in the AFP is assumed to be of 2.5\%.}
\label{proton_position}
\end{figure}

\section{Impact of Pile-up}
In this section the impact of the pile-up environment on the presence of the scattered protons in AFP and its influence on the jet kinematics is briefly discussed.

The presence of additional protons increases the chance of an event to be accepted by the trigger. The multiplicity of protons visible in AFP for a given pile-up is shown in Figure \ref{proton_position} (right). The plot was prepared under the assumption that a chance of the minimum-bias proton registration in the AFP is 2.5\%. A more detailed discussion about the probability of having the scattered protons in the AFP detector can be found in \textit{e.g.} Ref. \cite{Rafal_doktorat}. As can be seen from the figure, for pile-up of 10 the chance to have more than one proton is negligible. However, at $\mu = 30$ it increases to about 15\% and at $\mu = 50$ it is of about 30\%. This can decrease the background rejection power due to combinatorics as the chance that one of two (three, ...) registered protons will match the one from jet kinematics increases.

Another consequence of the non-zero pile-up environment is its impact on the jet reconstruction. In order to study such effect Monte Carlo samples containing signal (exclusive jets; generated by FPMC\cite{FPMC}), background (non-diffractive jets; generated by Pythia8\cite{Pythia8}) and pile-up (minimum bias events; generated by Pythia 8) were prepared. The jets were reconstructed using the  anti-$kT$ algorithm implemented in the FastJet tool\cite{FastJet}. Two values of the jet radius were used: R = 0.4 and 1.0. The choice was to match the most popular settings used by the ATLAS Collaboration for jet analyses.

The trigger efficiency, \textit{i.e.} the number of events triggered by the used algorithm to the number of all events having the double AFP tag, as a function of the pile-up value is shown in Figure \ref{fig:gggg}. Proton was assumed to be tagged if its x position in AFP was smaller than -2.5 mm, which reflects Run 2 data-taking conditions. Top plots are for the signal and bottom ones for the non-diffractive jet background. The value of pile-up was fixed, \textit{i.e.} no Poisson smearing was applied. The selection criteria result the pure selection efficiency (\textit{i.e.} at $\mu = 0$) of about 75\% for anti-$kT$ with $R = 0.4$ and 80\% for $R = 1.0$. The difference is due to the presence of a third (fourth, ...) jet in the event which influences the properties of kinematics of  a ``proton'' reconstructed from jets. The pile-up interactions cause more particles to be present in a registered event. In consequence, the jets have usually higher $p_T$ and slightly different rapidity w.r.t. the $\mu = 0$ situation. In case of signal this significantly worsens the efficiency, especially in the case of anti-$kT$ with $R = 1.0$. In case of background, slightly more events are selected at higher pile-up values. The major effect is the presence of multiple protons (see Fig. \ref{proton_position} (right)). Nevertheless, the rejection power stays at the level of few permille, typically  below 0.5\%. The fluctuations are of a statistical nature (the background sample contained 100 000 events).

It is worth mentioning that ATLAS and CMS Collaborations provided special algorithms \cite{ATLAS_PU_suppression} for the suppression of the pile-up effects on the jet reconstruction. It is clear that such a correction is a must also for the exclusive jet trigger, but such studies are beyond the scope of this paper.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{wykresy/ratio_pileup140}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{wykresy/ratio_pileup180}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{wykresy/ratio_pileup140_bg}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{wykresy/ratio_pileup180_bg}
\caption{Efficiency of HLT exclusive jet trigger algorithm for signal (exclusive jets, \textbf{top}) and background (non-diffractive jets, \textbf{bottom}) as a function of pile-up for two settings of anti-$kT$ algorithm. \textbf{Left} plots are for exact optics. On the \textbf{right} plot ``real'' protons were transported with $\theta_C$ of 180 $\mu$rad whereas ``jet protons'' with $\theta_C = 140$ $\mu$rad which reflects effect of luminosity leveling.}
\label{fig:gggg}
\end{figure}

\section{Summary}
The data delivered by the LHC provided a chance to measure properties of the exclusive jet production process. With the current experimental set-up, this can be done by ATLAS and CMS/TOTEM Collaborations, since both jets and scattered protons should be measured. In case of ATLAS, a dedicated trigger algorithms at the  L1 and HLT levels have to be used.

One of important HLT algorithms uses a correlation between the jet and the scattered proton kinematics. Due to the fact that protons are measured about 200 m from the interaction point, they have to travel through the LHC magnets which have a profound impact on their trajectories. This is taken into account in the proton tracking tools.

In this paper, it is shown how a new feature of the LHC machine -- the luminosity levelling -- impacts the trigger efficiency. A change of $\beta^*$ seems to have no effect, contrary to the change of the crossing angle of the beams. In such a case, when $\theta_C$ is changed from 140 $\mu$rad to 180 $\mu$rad, the efficiency drops by few percent. At zero pile-up the efficiency is  about 75\% for anti-$kT$ with $R = 0.4$ and 80\% if $R = 1.0$ is used. Simultaneously, non-diffractive background is strongly suppressed -- only less then 0.5\% of events is accepted.

Presence of high pile-up greatly modifies the signal efficiency since it changes the jet kinematics. Hence, the use of the pile-up suppression algorithms in the jet reconstruction is a must. Its effect on the trigger algorithm should be studied in detail by both Collaborations.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work has been partially supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education under the ``Diamentowy Grant'' programme (0138/DIA/2017/46). The author would like to thank dr Maciej Trzebi\'nski and prof. Janusz Chwastowski for suggestions, discussions and comments.