Looking through the QCD conformal window with perturbation theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract We study the conformal window of QCD using perturbation theory, starting from the perturbative upper edge and going down as much as we can towards the strongly coupled regime. We do so by exploiting the available five-loop computation of the $$ \overline{\mathrm{MS}} $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mover> <mml:mi>MS</mml:mi> <mml:mo>¯</mml:mo> </mml:mover> </mml:math> β -function and employing Borel resummation techniques both for the ordinary perturbative series and for the Banks-Zaks conformal expansion. Large- n f results are also used. We argue that the perturbative series for the $$ \overline{\mathrm{MS}} $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mover> <mml:mi>MS</mml:mi> <mml:mo>¯</mml:mo> </mml:mover> </mml:math> β -function is most likely asymptotic and non -Borel resummable, yet Borel resummation techniques allow to improve on ordinary perturbation theory. We find substantial evidence that QCD with n f = 12 flavours flows in the IR to a conformal field theory. Though the evidence is weaker, we find indications that also n f = 11 might sit within the conformal window. We also compute the anomalous dimensions γ and γ g of respectively the fermion mass bilinear and the gauge kinetic term operator at the fixed point, and compare them with the available lattice results. The conformal window might extend for lower values of n f , but our methods break down for n f < 11, where we expect that non-perturbative effects become important. A similar analysis is performed in the Veneziano limit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".