Charge Symmetry Violation in the Extraction of Strangeness Form Factors of the Nucleon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The strange quark contributions to the electromagnetic form factors of the proton are ideal quantities to study the role of hidden avour in the properties of the proton. This has motivated intense experimental measurements of these form factors. A major remaining source of systematic uncertainty in these determinations is the assumption that charge symmetry violation (CSV) is negligible. In this analysis, recent theoretical determinations of the CSV form factors are used and the available parity-violating electron scattering (PVES) data, up to Q2 ~ 1GeV2, are reanalysed. This analysis considers systematic expansions of the strangeness electric and magnetic form factors of the proton. The results provide an update to the determination of strangeness over a range of Q2 where, under certain assumptions about the effective axial form factor, an emergence of non-zero strangeness is revealed in the vicinity of Q2 ~ 0:6 GeV2. Given the recent theoretical calculations, it is apparent that the current limits on the CSV do not have a significant impact on the interpretation of the measurements and hence suggests an opportunity for a next generation of parity-violating measurements to more precisely map the distribution of strange quarks. The size of the Z box correction is particularly significant to the Standard Model (SM) test by the Qweak Experiment. The uncertainties that arise from the underlying γZ interference structure functions can be constrained by phenomenological models such as the Adelaide-Jefferson Lab-Manitoba (AJM) model. Recently, a new lattice method was proposed to compute the structure functions directly from a lattice calculation of the electromagnetic Compton amplitude T(1)(γγ) This method paves the way for a possible extension that involves studying the γZ interference Compton amplitude T₁(γZ) at low Q(2). The question about the required accuracy of T₁(γZ) 1 on the lattice to improve the phenomenological models was studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".