MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200462476 · doi:10.1007/jhep12(2021)045

Duals of Feynman integrals. Part I. Differential equations

2021· article· en· W4200462476 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Caron-Huot, Andrzej Pokraka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsFeynman diagramDual polyhedronPhysicsCohomologyUnitarityDifferential formSpacetimePure mathematicsInvariant (physics)Path integral formulationMathematical physicsMathematical analysisMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We elucidate the vector space (twisted relative cohomology) that is Poincaré dual to the vector space of Feynman integrals (twisted cohomology) in general spacetime dimension. The pairing between these spaces — an algebraic invariant called the intersection number — extracts integral coefficients for a minimal basis, bypassing the generation of integration-by-parts identities. Dual forms turn out to be much simpler than their Feynman counterparts: they are supported on maximal cuts of various sub-topologies (boundaries). Thus, they provide a systematic approach to generalized unitarity, the reconstruction of amplitudes from on-shell data. In this paper, we introduce the idea of dual forms and study their mathematical structures. As an application, we derive compact differential equations satisfied by arbitrary one-loop integrals in non-integer spacetime dimension. A second paper of this series will detail intersection pairings and their use to extract integral coefficients.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations68
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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