MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924028028 · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2019)016

Six-Gluon amplitudes in planar $$ \mathcal{N} $$ = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory at six and seven loops

2019· article· en· W2924028028 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteMcGill University
FundersKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueHausdorff Center for MathematicsMunich Institute for Astro- and Particle PhysicsMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoDanmarks GrundforskningsfondGovernment of CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Research FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionNational Science FoundationIndustry CanadaSimons FoundationVillum Fonden
KeywordsAmplitudeSupersymmetric gauge theoryPlanarKinematicsHomogeneous spaceBorn–Infeld modelLoop (graph theory)Scattering amplitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We compute the six-particle maximally-helicity-violating (MHV) and next-to-MHV (NMHV) amplitudes in planar maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory through seven loops and six loops, respectively, as an application of the extended Steinmann relations and using the cosmic Galois coaction principle. Starting from a minimal space of functions constructed using these principles, we identify the amplitude by matching its symmetries and predicted behavior in various kinematic limits. Through five loops, the MHV and NMHV amplitudes are uniquely determined using only the multi-Regge and leading collinear limits. Beyond five loops, the MHV amplitude requires additional data from the kinematic expansion around the collinear limit, which we obtain from the Pentagon Operator Product Expansion, and in particular from its single-gluon bound state contribution. We study the MHV amplitude in the self-crossing limit, where its singular terms agree with previous predictions. Analyzing and plotting the amplitudes along various kinematical lines, we continue to find remarkable stability between loop orders.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations136
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207