MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995232955 · doi:10.1007/jhep12(2019)040

The S-matrix bootstrap. Part III: higher dimensional amplitudes

2019· article· en· W2995232955 on OpenAlexafffund
Miguel F. Paulos, João Penedones, Jonathan Toledo, Balt C. van Rees, Pedro Vieira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNational Centres of Competence in Research SwissMAPCERNSimons Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsUnitarityScattering amplitudeS-matrixCrossingLorentz covarianceMathematical physicsScalar (mathematics)AmplitudeMatrix (chemical analysis)Scalar fieldScatteringInvariant (physics)Quartic functionQuantum mechanicsQuantum field theoryLorentz transformationTheoretical physicsQuantum electrodynamicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We consider constraints on the S-matrix of any gapped, Lorentz invariant quantum field theory in 3+1 dimensions due to crossing symmetry, analyticity and unitarity. We extremize cubic couplings, quartic couplings and scattering lengths relevant for the elastic scattering amplitude of two identical scalar particles. In the cases where our results can be compared with the older S-matrix literature they are in excellent agreement. We also extremize a cubic coupling in 2+1 dimensions which we can directly compare to a universal bound for a QFT in AdS. This paper generalizes our previous 1+1 dimensional results of [1] and [2].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations143
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207