MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Supertranslation-Invariant Formula for the Angular Momentum Flux in Gravitational Scattering

2023· article· en· W4313526394 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Reza Javadinezhad, Massimo Porrati

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, Los AngelesInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAngular momentumScatteringGravitonTotal angular momentum quantum numberClassical mechanicsScattering amplitudeGravitational waveGeneral relativityGravitationQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The angular momentum radiated in gravitational scattering can be changed by performing a supertranslation of the asymptotic metric, i.e., by adding radiation with infinite wavelength to the metric. This puzzling property can be avoided by adopting a supertranslation-invariant definition of the angular momentum flux in general relativity. Definitions currently available in the literature cannot reproduce the flux necessary to obtain the correct radiation reaction effects in gravitational scattering. They also disagree with computations of the flux performed using scattering amplitudes and soft-graviton theorems. In this Letter, we provide a new supertranslation-invariant definition of the angular momentum flux in gravitational scattering that uses only asymptotic metric data and reproduces the flux necessary to obtain the correct radiation reaction effects.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review Letters→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→