MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613077870 · doi:10.1007/jhep01(2018)016

Unwinding the amplituhedron in binary

2018· article· en· W2613077870 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuasicrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCanonical formScattering amplitudeSpace (punctuation)UnitarityDimension (graph theory)Binary numberTopology (electrical circuits)Configuration space

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new, fundamentally combinatorial and topological characterizations of the amplituhedron. Upon projecting external data through the amplituhedron, the resulting configuration of points has a specified (and maximal) generalized “winding number”. Equivalently, the amplituhedron can be fully described in binary: canonical projections of the geometry down to one dimension have a specified (and maximal) number of “sign flips” of the projected data. The locality and unitarity of scattering amplitudes are easily derived as elementary consequences of this binary code. Minimal winding defines a natural “dual” of the amplituhedron. This picture gives us an avatar of the amplituhedron purely in the configuration space of points in vector space (momentum-twistor space in the physics), a new interpretation of the canonical amplituhedron form, and a direct bosonic understanding of the scattering super-amplitude in planar $$ \mathcal{N} $$ = 4 SYM as a differential form on the space of physical kinematical data.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations122
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicQuasicrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207