Loop corrections to soft theorems in gauge theories and gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study loop corrections to the recently proposed new soft theorems of Cachazo and Strominger [1], for both gravity and gauge theory amplitudes. We first review the proof of its tree-level validity based on BCFW recursion relations, which also establishes an infinite series of universals soft functions for MHV amplitudes, and a generalization to supersymmetric cases. For loop corrections, we focus on infrared finite, rational amplitudes at one loop, and apply recursion relations with boundary or double-pole contributions. For all-plus amplitudes, we prove that the subleading soft theorems are exact to all multiplicities for gauge theory and up to 12-points for gravity amplitudes. For single-minus amplitudes, while the subleading soft theorems are again exact for the minus-helicity soft leg, for plus-helicity loop corrections are required. Using recursion relations, we identify the source of such mismatch as stemming from the special contribution containing double poles, and obtain the all multiplicity one-loop corrections to the subleading soft behavior in Yang-Mills theory. We also comment on the derivation of soft theorems using BCFW recursion in arbitrary dimensions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".