MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389325481 · doi:10.1103/f46t-xp36

Constraining glueball couplings

2025· preprint· en· W4389325481 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea L. Guerrieri, Aditya Hebbar, Balt C. van Rees

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle Interactions
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersNextGenerationEUH2020 European Research CouncilEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueSimons Foundation
KeywordsGlueballBound stateUnitarityPhysicsAmplitudeUpper and lower boundsParameter spaceLattice (music)Constraint (computer-aided design)Particle physicsMathematical physicsTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsMesonGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We set up a numerical S-matrix bootstrap problem to rigorously constrain bound-state couplings given by the residues of poles in elastic amplitudes. We extract upper bounds on these couplings that follow purely from unitarity, crossing symmetry, and the Roy equations within their proven domain of validity. First we consider amplitudes with a single spin-0 or spin-2 bound state, both with or without a self-coupling. Subsequently we investigate amplitudes with the spectrum of bound states corresponding to the estimated glueball masses of pure S U ( 3 ) Yang-Mills. In the latter case the “glue-hedron,” the space of allowed couplings, provides a first-principles constraint for future lattice estimates.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.434 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicQuantum Chromodynamics and Particle InteractionsFrench-language works237,207