MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337665503 · doi:10.1007/jhep06(2016)170

Extensions of theories from soft limits

2016· article· en· W2337665503 on OpenAlexafffund
Freddy Cachazo, Peter Cha, Sebastian Mizera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsTheoretical physicsSigma modelGoldstone bosonScalar (mathematics)Limit (mathematics)Field theory (psychology)String theoryMathematical physicsBosonQuantum mechanicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a variety of field theories with vanishing single soft limits. In all cases, the structure of the soft limit is controlled by a larger theory, which provides an extension of the original one by adding more fields and interactions. Our main example is the U(N ) non-linear sigma model in its CHY representation. Its extension is a theory in which the NLSM Goldstone bosons interact with a cubic biadjoint scalar. Other theories we study and extend are the special Galileon and Born-Infeld theory, including its maximally supersymmetric version in four dimensions, the DBI-Volkov-Akulov theory. In all the cases, we propose the CHY representation of the complete tree-level S-matrix of the extended theories. In fact, CHY formulas are the key technique for studying the single soft limit behavior of the original theories. As a byproduct, we show that the tree-level S-matrix of the extended NLSM theory can be constructed using a very compact BCFW-like recursion relation, where physical poles are at most linear in the deformation parameter.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations135
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207