MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966484707 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.016005

Longitudinal rescaling and high-energy effective actions

2009· article· en· W1966484707 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter Orland, Jing Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsPhysicsLambdaRenormalizationQuantum chromodynamicsMathematical physicsRenormalization groupHadronMomentum (technical analysis)Functional renormalization groupParticle physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under a longitudinal rescaling of coordinates ${x}^{0,3}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\lambda}{x}^{0,3}$, $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\ll}1$, the classical QCD action simplifies dramatically. This is the high-energy limit, as $\ensuremath{\lambda}\ensuremath{\sim}{s}^{\ensuremath{-}1/2}$, where $s$ is the center-of-mass energy squared of a hadronic collision. We find the quantum corrections to the rescaled action at one loop, in particular, finding the anomalous powers of $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ in this action, with $\ensuremath{\lambda}<1$. The method is an integration over high-momentum components of the gauge field. This is a Wilsonian renormalization procedure, and counterterms are needed to make the sharp-momentum cutoff gauge invariant. Our result for the quantum action is found, assuming $|\mathrm{ln}\ensuremath{\lambda}|\ensuremath{\ll}1$, which is essential for the validity of perturbation theory. If $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ is sufficiently small (so that $|\mathrm{ln}\ensuremath{\lambda}|\ensuremath{\gg}1$), then the perturbative renormalization group breaks down. This is due to uncontrollable fluctuations of the longitudinal chromomagnetic field.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207