MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404449960 · doi:10.1007/jhep07(2025)037

Classical observables from causal response functions

2025· article· en· W4404449960 on OpenAlexaff
Shovon Biswas, Julio Parra-Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstitut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Université Paris-Saclay
KeywordsObservableMathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceStatistical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We revisit the calculation of classical observables from causal response functions, following up on recent work by Caron-Huot et al. [1]. We derive a formula to compute asymptotic in-in observables from a particular soft limit of five-point amputated response functions. Using such formula, we re-derive the formulas by Kosower, Maybee and O’Connell (KMOC) for the linear impulse and radiated linear momentum of particles undergoing scattering, and we present an unambiguous calculation of the radiated angular momentum at leading order. Then, we explore the consequences of manifestly causal Feynman rules in the calculation of classical observables by employing the causal (Keldysh) basis in the in-in formalism. We compute the linear impulse, radiated waveform and its variance at leading and/or next-to-leading order in the causal basis, and find that all terms singular in the ħ → 0 limit cancel manifestly at the integrand level. We also find that the calculations simplify considerably and classical properties such as factorization of six-point amplitudes are more transparent in the causal basis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→