MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392083957 · doi:10.1007/jhep12(2024)051

Positivity bounds on massive vectors

2024· article· en· W4392083957 on OpenAlexafffund
Francesco Bertucci, Johan Henriksson, Brian McPeak, Sergio Ricossa, Francesco Riva, Alessandro Vichi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsMassless particleEffective field theoryCutoffObservableAmplitudeParticle physicsContext (archaeology)Abelian groupPhotonTheoretical physicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract In this paper, we explore positivity bounds for the effective field theory (EFT) of a single weakly coupled massive vector field. The presence of both mass and spin makes the crossing properties of the amplitudes vastly complicated — we address this by parametrizing the amplitudes as products of a polarization matrix and a vector of appropriately chosen functions with simpler crossing properties. The resulting framework involves sum rules and null constraints that allows us to constrain any combination of low-energy observables, such as EFT amplitudes. By varying the value of the vector mass over the cutoff scale, some of our bounds asymptote to the bounds obtained in the context of photons and massless scalars. This work paves the way for future applications to e.g. non-abelian massive vectors, glueballs and theories with spin larger than one.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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