MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381247962 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.09619

Early-times Yang-Mills dynamics and the characterization of strongly interacting matter with statistical learning

2023· preprint· en· W4381247962 on OpenAlexaff
M. Heffernan, Charles Gale, Sangyong Jeon, Jean-François Paquet

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsQuark–gluon plasmaObservablePlasmaLarge Hadron ColliderAb initioParticle physicsGluonHadronQuarkStatistical physicsNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, a plasma of deconfined quarks and gluons is formed within $1$ fm/c of the nuclei's impact. The complex dynamics of the collision before $\approx 1$ fm/c is often described with parametric models, which affect the predictivity of calculations. In this work, we perform a systematic analysis of LHC measurements from Pb-Pb collisions, by combining an \emph{ab-initio} model of the early stage of the collisions with a hydrodynamic model of the plasma. We obtain state-of-the-art constraints on the shear and bulk viscosity of quark-gluon plasma. We mitigate the additional cost of the ab-initio initial conditions by combining Bayesian model averaging with transfer learning, allowing us to account for important theoretical uncertainties in the hydrodynamics-to-hadron transition. We show that, despite the apparent strong constraints on the shear viscosity, metrics that balance the model's predictivity with its degree of agreement with data do not prefer a temperature-dependent specific shear viscosity over a constant value. We validate the model by comparing with discriminating observables not used in the calibration, finding excellent agreement.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207