MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Higher Order Corrections to Spin Correlations in Top Quark Pair Production at the LHC

2019· article· en· W2908774727 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arnd Behring, M. Czakon, Alexander Mitov, René Poncelet, Andrew S. Papanastasiou

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilInstitute of GeneticsMedical Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftScience and Technology Facilities CouncilEuropean CommissionUniversity of EdinburghRWTH Aachen UniversityBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsPhysicsParticle physicsTop quarkProduction (economics)Quantum chromodynamicsSpin (aerodynamics)Order (exchange)Pair productionLarge Hadron ColliderQuarkPhase spaceNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We calculate, for the first time, the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD corrections to spin correlations in top quark pair production at the LHC. The NNLO corrections play an important role in the description of the corresponding differential distributions. We observe that the standard model calculation describes the available $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}{\ensuremath{\phi}}_{\ensuremath{\ell}\ensuremath{\ell}}$ data in the fiducial region but does not agree with the $\mathrm{\ensuremath{\Delta}}{\ensuremath{\phi}}_{\ensuremath{\ell}\ensuremath{\ell}}$ measurement extrapolated to full phase space. Most likely this discrepancy is due to the difference in precision between existing event generators and NNLO calculations for dilepton top-pair final states.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations78
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207