Thermal field theory at next-to-leading order in the hard thermal loop expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we study the hard-thermal-loop effective theory at next-to-leading order. Standard power counting predicts that a large number of diagrams, including 2-loop diagrams, may need to be calculated. In all of the calculations that have been done however, with the exception of the photon self-energy, the full next-to-leading order contribution can be obtained by calculating only soft 1-loop diagrams with effective lines and vertices. It is of interest to know if the photon self-energy is the only exception to this rule, or if there are others, and which ones. In this paper we perform a refined power-counting analysis using real-time finite temperature field theory which is particularly well suited to the task. We show that the standard power-counting rules obtained from the imaginary time formalism usually overestimate the size of the 2-loop diagrams. We argue that the only exceptions to the rule that the 1-loop soft diagrams give the next-to-leading order contribution are $2n$-photon vertices.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".