Nonperturbative contributions to the QCD pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we report on a new proposal to treat the infrared problems of thermal QCD by taking into account explicitly the confining influence of the Gribov horizon.In order to make clear the possible value of such an approach, we briefly review the most important arguments why a straightforward perturbative description of finite-temperature QCD is unlikely to be successful.From the infrared problems of thermal perturbation theory one can conclude that confinement effects and bound states probably play an important role also in the high-temperature phase.To set the stage we recount the supposed role of the Gribov horizon for confinement, before we turn to the application to finite-temperature theory.In the current approach it has been found that the contributions to the free energy from the explicit inclusion of the horizon begin to set in at order g 6 -precisely where the infrared problems of thermal QCD lead to a breakdown of ordinary perturbation theory.From the study of observables (free energy, anomaly, bulk viscosity) we also note that for thermodynamic observables the leading order term obtained by such an expansion in the coupling strongly deviates from the more complete numerical solution.This can be regarded as yet another sign for general problems of series expansions in thermal QCD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".