Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract We present efficient data-driven approaches to predict the value of subdivergence-free Feynman integrals (Feynman periods) in ϕ 4 -theory from properties of the underlying Feynman graphs, based on a statistical examination of almost 2 million graphs. We find that the numbers of cuts and cycles determines the period to better than 2% relative accuracy. Hepp bound and Martin invariant allow for even more accurate predictions. In most cases, the period is a multi-linear function of the properties in question. Furthermore, we investigate the usefulness of machine-learning algorithms to predict the period. When sufficiently many properties of the graph are used, the period can be predicted with better than 0.05% relative accuracy. We use one of the constructed prediction models for weighted Monte-Carlo sampling of Feynman graphs, and compute the primitive contribution to the beta function of ϕ 4 -theory at L ∈ {13, … , 17} loops. Our results confirm the previously known numerical estimates of the primitive beta function and improve their accuracy. Compared to uniform random sampling of graphs, our new algorithm is 1000-times faster to reach a desired accuracy, or reaches 32-fold higher accuracy in fixed runtime. The dataset of all periods computed for this work, combined with a previous dataset, is made publicly available. Besides the physical application, it could serve as a benchmark for graph-based machine learning algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".