Optimal grouping of arbitrary diagrammatic expansions via analytic pole structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a general method to optimize the evaluation of Feynman diagrammatic expansions which uses an automated symbolic assignment of momentum/energy conserving variables to each diagram. With this symbolic representation, we utilize the pole structure of each diagram to sort the Feynman diagrams into groups that are likely to contain nearly equal or nearly canceling diagrams, and we show that for some model parameters this cancellation is exact. This allows for a potentially massive cancellation during the numerical integration of internal momenta variables, leading to an optimal suppression of the ``sign problem'' and hence reducing the computational cost. Although we define these groups using a frequency space representation, the equality or cancellation of diagrams within the group remains valid in other representations such as imaginary time used in standard diagrammatic Monte Carlo. As an application of the approach, we apply this method, combined with algorithmic Matsubara integration (AMI) [A. Taheridehkordi, S. H. Curnoe, and J. P. F. LeBlanc, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035120 (2019)] and Monte Carlo methods, to the Hubbard model self-energy expansion on a 2D square lattice, which we evaluate and compare with existing benchmarks.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".