MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Hybrid Strategy for the Lattice Evaluation of the Leading Order Hadronic Contribution to (g− 2)

2016· article· en· W2963930021 on OpenAlexaff
Maarten Golterman, Kim Maltman, Santiago Peris

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVacuum polarizationPhysicsAnomalous magnetic dipole momentHadronMuonParticle physicsLattice (music)Numerical integrationMathematical analysisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The leading-order hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magentic moment, aμLO,HVP, can be expressed as an integral over Euclidean Q2 of the vacuum polarization function. We point out that a simple trapezoid-rule numerical integration of the current lattice data is good enough to produce a result with a less-than-1% error for the contribution from the interval above Q2≳0.1−0.2GeV2. This leaves the interval below this value of Q2 as the one to focus on in the future. In order to achieve an accurate result also in this lower window Q2≲0.1−0.2GeV2, we indicate the usefulness of three possible tools. These are: Padé Approximants, polynomials in a conformal variable and a NNLO Chiral Perturbation Theory representation supplemented by a Q4 term. The combination of the numerical integration in the upper Q2 interval together with the use of these tools in the lower Q2 interval provides a hybrid strategy which looks promising as a means of reaching the desired goal on the lattice of a sub-percent precision in the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear and Particle Physics ProceedingsSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207