MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602942862 · doi:10.1007/jhep11(2017)039

Positive geometries and canonical forms

2017· article· en· W2602942862 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGoddard Space Flight CenterPrinceton UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCanonical formConnection (principal bundle)Gravitational singularityLoop (graph theory)Boundary (topology)TriangulationDifferential formClass (philosophy)Tree (set theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent years have seen a surprising connection between the physics of scattering amplitudes and a class of mathematical objects — the positive Grassmannian, positive loop Grassmannians, tree and loop Amplituhedra — which have been loosely referred to as “positive geometries”. The connection between the geometry and physics is provided by a unique differential form canonically determined by the property of having logarithmic singularities (only) on all the boundaries of the space, with residues on each boundary given by the canonical form on that boundary. The structures seen in the physical setting of the Amplituhedron are both rigid and rich enough to motivate an investigation of the notions of “positive geometries” and their associated “canonical forms” as objects of study in their own right, in a more general mathematical setting. In this paper we take the first steps in this direction. We begin by giving a precise definition of positive geometries and canonical forms, and introduce two general methods for finding forms for more complicated positive geometries from simpler ones — via “triangulation” on the one hand, and “push-forward” maps between geometries on the other. We present numerous examples of positive geometries in projective spaces, Grassmannians, and toric, cluster and flag varieties, both for the simplest “simplex-like” geometries and the richer “polytope-like” ones. We also illustrate a number of strategies for computing canonical forms for large classes of positive geometries, ranging from a direct determination exploiting knowledge of zeros and poles, to the use of the general triangulation and push-forward methods, to the representation of the form as volume integrals over dual geometries and contour integrals over auxiliary spaces. These methods yield interesting representations for the canonical forms of wide classes of positive geometries, ranging from the simplest Amplituhedra to new expressions for the volume of arbitrary convex polytopes.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations159
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207