MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296117342 · doi:10.1007/jhep09(2022)045

Celestial geometry

2022· article· en· W4296117342 on OpenAlexafffund
Sebastian Mizera, Sabrina Pasterski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaGovernment of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCelestial spherePhysicsConnection (principal bundle)Great circleKinematicsGeometryPoint (geometry)Celestial mechanicsSkyOperator (biology)Symmetry (geometry)Mathematical physicsTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsMathematicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract Celestial holography expresses $$ \mathcal{S} $$ S -matrix elements as correlators in a CFT living on the night sky. Poincaré invariance imposes additional selection rules on the allowed positions of operators. As a consequence, n -point correlators are only supported on certain patches of the celestial sphere, depending on the labeling of each operator as incoming/outgoing. Here we initiate a study of the celestial geometry , examining the kinematic support of celestial amplitudes for different crossing channels. We give simple geometric rules for determining this support. For n ≥ 5, we can view these channels as tiling together to form a covering of the celestial sphere. Our analysis serves as a stepping off point to better understand the analyticity of celestial correlators and illuminate the connection between the 4D kinematic and 2D CFT notions of crossing symmetry.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→