MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of machine learning to the study of QCD transition in heavy ion collisions

2023· article· en· W6903660289 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum chromodynamicsLattice QCDQuark–gluon plasmaQCD matterNuclear matterQuarkChiral perturbation theoryPhase transition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In high-energy heavy ion collisions, quarks and gluons are released from the colliding nucleus to form a new state of nuclear matter called deconfined quark gluon plasma (QGP). To study the transition from normal nuclear matter or hadron resonance gas to QGP, non-perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) must be solved on supercomputers using the lattice numerical method (lattice Quantum Chromodynamics, lattice QCD). However, lattice QCD only works for zero and small baryon chemical potential regions that can be described by the Taylor expansion and provides the nuclear equation of state (EoS) and QCD transition in these regions. For large baryon chemical potential regions that cannot be described by the Taylor expansion, lattice QCD fails to provide the nuclear EoS and QCD transition owing to the famous sign problem. Machine learning helps to study the nuclear EoS and QCD phase transition. First, machine learning can determine the nuclear EoS and QCD transition using the momentum distribution of final state hadrons in heavy-ion collisions, with data from both heavy-ion collision experiments and relativistic hydrodynamic simulations. Second, it can contribute to the direct solution of the sign problem in lattice QCD. The present paper reviews the applications of machine learning to the study of the QCD phase transition in heavy-ion collisions. This study (1) introduces nuclear EoS and QCD transition as well as the difficulty of the lattice QCD method, (2) analyzes the nuclear EoS using Bayesian analysis, (3) identifies the nuclear EoS and QCD phase transition using different types of deep neural networks (e.g., convolutional neural network, point cloud network, and many-event averaging), (4) searches for critical self-similarity using a dynamical edge convolution-based graph neural network, (5) learns the quasi-particle mass using a physically informed network and auto-differentiation, (6) discards unphysical regions in the nuclear EoS with a critical endpoint using active learning, (7) discusses unsupervised learning for the nuclear liquid-gas phase transition, (8) determines the nuclear symmetry energy in heavy-ion collisions, (9) investigates Mach cones using deep learning assisted jet tomography, and (10) accelerates the sampling of lattice QCD configurations using a physically constrained neural network while solving the sign problem in lattice QCD using deep learning.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207