From infinity to four dimensions: higher residue pairings and Feynman integrals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract We study a surprising phenomenon in which Feynman integrals in D = 4 − 2 ε space-time dimensions as ε → 0 can be fully characterized by their behavior in the opposite limit, ε → ∞ . More concretely, we consider vector bundles of Feynman integrals over kinematic spaces, whose connections have a polynomial dependence on ε and are known to be governed by intersection numbers of twisted forms. They give rise to differential equations that can be obtained exactly as a truncating expansion in either ε or 1 /ε . We use the latter for explicit computations, which are performed by expanding intersection numbers in terms of Saito’s higher residue pairings (previously used in the context of topological Landau-Ginzburg models and mirror symmetry). These pairings localize on critical points of a certain Morse function, which correspond to regions in the loop-momentum space that were previously thought to govern only the large- D physics. The results of this work leverage recent understanding of an analogous situation for moduli spaces of curves, where the α′ → 0 and α′ → ∞ limits of intersection numbers coincide for scattering amplitudes of massless quantum field theories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".