Six-Gluon amplitudes in planar N $$ \mathcal{N} $$ = 4 super-Yang-Mills theory at six and seven loops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compute the six-particle maximally-helicity-violating (MHV) and next-to-MHV (NMHV) amplitudes in planar maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory through seven loops and six loops, respectively, as an application of the extended Steinmann relations and using the cosmic Galois coaction principle. Starting from a minimal space of functions constructed using these principles, we identify the amplitude by matching its symmetries and predicted behavior in various kinematic limits. Through five loops, the MHV and NMHV amplitudes are uniquely determined using only the multi-Regge and leading collinear limits. Beyond five loops, the MHV amplitude requires additional data from the kinematic expansion around the collinear limit, which we obtain from the Pentagon Operator Product Expansion, and in particular from its single-gluon bound state contribution. We study the MHV amplitude in the self-crossing limit, where its singular terms agree with previous predictions. Analyzing and plotting the amplitudes along various kinematical lines, we continue to find remarkable stability between loop orders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".