MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226068574 · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac9a40

The SAGEX review on scattering amplitudes Chapter 11: Soft Theorems and Celestial Amplitudes

2022· article· en· W4226068574 on OpenAlexaff
Tristan McLoughlin, Andrea Puhm, Ana-Maria Raclariu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeH2020 European Research CouncilScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsAmplitudeScattering amplitudePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The soft limits of scattering amplitudes have been extensively studied due to their essential role in the computation of physical observables in collider physics. The universal factorisation that occurs in these kinematic limits has been shown to be related to conservation laws associated with asymptotic, or large, gauge symmetries. This connection has led to a deeper understanding of the symmetries of gauge and gravitational theories and to a reformulation of scattering amplitudes in a basis of boost eigenstates which makes manifest the two-dimensional global conformal symmetry of the celestial sphere. The recast, or celestial , amplitudes possess many of the properties of conformal field theory (CFT) correlation functions which has suggested a path towards a holographic description of asymptotically flat spacetimes. In this review we consider these interconnected developments in our understanding of soft theorems, asymptotic symmetries and CFT with a focus on the structure and symmetries of the celestial amplitudes and their holographic interpretation.

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)0.001
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 score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations68
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207