MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104579295

A Note on Polytopes for Scattering Amplitudes

2012· article· en· W3104579295 on OpenAlexaff
Nima Arkani–Hamed, Jacob L. Bourjaily, Freddy Cachazo, Andrew P. Hodges, Jaroslav Trnka

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolytopeTwistor theoryCombinatoricsScattering amplitudeMathematicsPolygon (computer graphics)ScatteringClass (philosophy)AmplitudeSpace (punctuation)Tree (set theory)Product (mathematics)PhysicsMathematical physicsGeometryQuantum mechanics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this note we continue the exploration of the polytope picture for scattering am-plitudes, where amplitudes are associated with the volumes of polytopes in generalized momentum-twistor spaces. After a quick warm-up example illustrating the essential ideas with the elementary geometry of polygons in CP2, we interpret the 1-loop MHV integrand as the volume of a polytope in CP3 × CP3, which can be thought of as the space obtained by taking the geometric dual of the Wilson loop in each CP3 of the product. We then review the polytope picture for the NMHV tree amplitude and give it a more direct and intrinsic definition as the geometric dual of a canonical “square ” of the Wilson-Loop polygon, living in a certain extension of momentum-twistor space into CP4. In both cases, one natural class of triangulations of the polytope produces the BCFW/CSW representations of the amplitudes; another class of triangulations leads to a striking new form, which is both remarkably simple as well as manifestly cyclic and local. ar X iv

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations69
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207