MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025764589 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.045019

Soft fermion dispersion relation at next-to-leading order in hot QED

2007· article· en· W2025764589 on OpenAlexafffund
M. E. Carrington

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityWinnipeg Institute for Theoretical Physics
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDispersion relationPhysicsQuasiparticleOrder (exchange)FermionQuantum chromodynamicsParticle physicsQuantum electrodynamicsElectronEnergy (signal processing)Dispersion (optics)Relation (database)Mathematical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study next-to-leading-order contributions to the soft static fermion dispersion relation in hot QED. We derive an expression for the complete next-to-leading-order contribution to the retarded fermion self-energy. The real and imaginary parts of this expression give the next-to-leading-order contributions to the mass and damping rate of the fermionic quasiparticle. Many of the terms that are expected to contribute according to the traditional power counting argument are actually subleading. We explain why the power counting method over estimates the contribution from these terms. For the electron damping rate in QED we obtain: ${\ensuremath{\gamma}}_{\mathrm{QED}}=\frac{{e}^{2}T}{4\ensuremath{\pi}}(2.70)$. We check our method by calculating the next-to-leading-order contribution to the damping rate for the case of QCD with two flavors and three colors. Our result agrees with the result obtained previously in the literature. The numerical evaluation of the nlo contribution to the mass is left to a future publication.

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)0.002
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 score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
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