MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Electromagnetic Charge Radius of the Pion at High Precision

2017· article· en· W2626597518 on OpenAlexfundno aff
B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, Diganta Das

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
KeywordsPhysicsCharge radiusPionUnitarityForm factor (electronics)Particle physicsCharge (physics)Elastic scatteringFormalism (music)HadronParametrization (atmospheric modeling)ScatteringMathematical physicsQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a determination of the pion charge radius from high precision data on the pion vector form factor from both timelike and spacelike regions, using a novel formalism based on analyticity and unitarity. At low energies, instead of the poorly known modulus of the form factor, we use its phase, known with high accuracy from Roy equations for ππ elastic scattering via the Fermi-Watson theorem. We use also the values of the modulus at several higher timelike energies, where the data from e^{+}e^{-} annihilation and τ decay are mutually consistent, as well as the most recent measurements at spacelike momenta. The experimental uncertainties are implemented by Monte Carlo simulations. The results, which do not rely on a specific parametrization, are optimal for the given input information and do not depend on the unknown phase of the form factor above the first inelastic threshold. Our prediction for the charge radius of the pion is r_{π}=(0.657±0.003) fm, which amounts to an increase in precision by a factor of about 2.7 compared to the Particle Data Group average.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review Letters→Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies→French-language works237,207→