MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100014073 · doi:10.1007/jhep02%282018%29177

Hexagonalization of correlation functions II: two-particle contributions

2023· article· en· W3100014073 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thiago Fleury

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorInstituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia de MatemáticaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsPlanarComputationLoop (graph theory)Particle (ecology)Work (physics)Point (geometry)Correlation function (quantum field theory)Statistical physicsMathematical physicsTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsCombinatoricsAlgorithmGeometryMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this report, we compute one-loop planar five-point functions in N=4 super-Yang-Mills using integrability. As in the previous work, we decompose the correlation functions into hexagon form factors and glue them using the weight factors which depend on the cross-ratios. The main new ingredient in the computation, as compared to the four-point functions studied in the previous paper, is the two-particle mirror contribution. We develop techniques to evaluate it and find agreement with the perturbative results in all the cases we analyzed. In addition, we consider next-to-extremal four-point functions, which are known to be protected, and show that the sum of one-particle and two-particle contributions at one loop adds up to zero as expected. The tools developed in this work would be useful for computing higher-particle contributions which would be relevant for more complicated quantities such as higher-loop corrections and non-planar correlators.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations45
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207