MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981480293 · doi:10.1007/jhep09(2020)009

A conformal dispersion relation: correlations from absorption

2020· preprint· en· W2981480293 on OpenAlexafffund
Dean Carmi, Simon Caron-Huot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill UniversityCalifornia Institute of TechnologyInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueSimons Foundation
KeywordsConformal mapScalar (mathematics)Ising modelDiscontinuity (linguistics)Conformal field theoryDispersion relationMathematicsKernel (algebra)ScalingMathematical analysisMathematical physicsPhysicsPure mathematicsQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We introduce the analog of Kramers-Kronig dispersion relations for correlators of four scalar operators in an arbitrary conformal field theory. The correlator is expressed as an integral over its “absorptive part”, defined as a double discontinuity, times a theory-independent kernel which we compute explicitly. The kernel is found by resumming the data obtained by the Lorentzian inversion formula. For scalars of equal scaling dimensions, it is a remarkably simple function (elliptic integral function) of two pairs of cross-ratios. We perform various checks of the dispersion relation (generalized free fields, holographic theories at tree-level, 3D Ising model), and get perfect matching. Finally, we derive an integral relation that relates the “inverted” conformal block with the ordinary conformal block.

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)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→