Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39108815›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied crystallography2024

On the analysis of two-time correlation functions: equilibrium versus non-equilibrium systems.

Anastasia Ragulskaya, Vladimir Starostin, Fajun Zhang, Christian Gutt, Frank Schreiber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied crystallography, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anastasia RagulskayaInstitute of Applied Physics, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1426-7182
Vladimir StarostinCluster of Excellence Machine Learning: New Perspectives for Science, University of Tübingen, Maria-von-Linden-Straße 6, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4533-6256
Fajun ZhangInstitute of Applied Physics, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7639-8594
Christian GuttDepartment of Physics, University of Siegen, Emmy-Noether-Campus, Walter-Flex-Straße 3, 57076, Siegen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0051-8542
Frank SchreiberInstitute of Applied Physics, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3659-6718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy (XPCS) is a powerful tool for the investigation of dynamics covering a broad range of timescales and length scales. The two-time correlation function (TTC) is commonly used to track non-equilibrium dynamical evolution in XPCS measurements, with subsequent extraction of one-time correlations. While the theoretical foundation for the quantitative analysis of TTCs is primarily established for equilibrium systems, where key parameters such as the diffusion coefficient remain constant, non-equilibrium systems pose a unique challenge. In such systems, different projections ('cuts') of the TTC may lead to divergent results if the underlying fundamental parameters themselves are subject to temporal variations. This article explores widely used approaches for TTC calculations and common methods for extracting relevant information from correlation functions, particularly in the light of comparing dynamics in equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems.

Indexed as

data analysistwo-time correlation functionsX-ray photon correlation spectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID39108815
PMCPMC11299609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.