MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111564282 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.064904

Probes of the quark-gluon plasma and plasma instabilities

2021· article· en· W3111564282 on OpenAlexafffund
Sigtryggur Hauksson, Sangyong Jeon, Charles Gale

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. C · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsQuark–gluon plasmaPlasmaInstabilityQuantum electrodynamicsPhotonAnisotropyJet (fluid)Particle physicsNuclear physicsQuantum mechanicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penetrating probes in heavy-ion collisions, like jets and photons, are sensitive to the transport coefficients of the produced quark-gluon plasma, such as shear and bulk viscosity. Quantifying this sensitivity requires a detailed understanding of photon emission and jet-medium interaction in a nonequilibrium plasma during the hydrodynamic stages of heavy-ion collisions. Up to now, such an understanding has been hindered by plasma instabilities. These instabilities arise out of equilibrium and lead to spurious divergences when evaluating the rate of interaction of hard probes with the plasma. In this paper, we show that taking into account the time evolution of an unstable plasma cures these divergences. Specifically, we calculate the time evolution of gluon two-point correlators in a setup with a small initial momentum anisotropy and show that the gluon occupation density at first grows exponentially. Based on this calculation, we argue for a phenomenological prescription where instability poles are subtracted. Finally, we show that in the Abelian case instability fields do not affect medium-induced photon emission to our order of approximation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. CSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207