Scattering of spinning black holes from exponentiated soft factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We provide evidence that the classical scattering of two spinning black holes is controlled by the soft expansion of exchanged gravitons. We show how an exponentiation of Cachazo-Strominger soft factors, acting on massive higher-spin amplitudes, can be used to find spin contributions to the aligned-spin scattering angle, conjecturally extending previously known results to higher orders in spin at one-loop order. The extraction of the classical limit is accomplished via the on-shell leading-singularity method and using massive spinor-helicity variables. The three-point amplitude for arbitrary-spin massive particles minimally coupled to gravity is expressed in an exponential form, and in the infinite-spin limit it matches the effective stress-energy tensor of the linearized Kerr solution. A four-point gravitational Compton amplitude is obtained from an extrapolated soft theorem, equivalent to gluing two exponential three-point amplitudes, and becomes itself an exponential operator. The construction uses these amplitudes to: 1) recover the known tree-level scattering angle at all orders in spin, 2) recover the known one-loop linear-in-spin interaction, 3) match a previous conjectural expression for the one-loop scattering angle at quadratic order in spin, 4) propose new one-loop results through quartic order in spin. These connections link the computation of higher-multipole interactions to the study of deeper orders in the soft expansion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".