MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407399026 · doi:10.1007/jhep02(2025)074

On the new factorizations of Yang-Mills amplitudes

2025· article· en· W4407399026 on OpenAlexafffund
Yong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsPhysicsYang–Mills existence and mass gapAmplitudeMathematical physicsScattering amplitudeQuantum electrodynamicsYang–Mills theoryTheoretical physicsParticle physicsGauge theoryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract In this work, we prove the new factorization pattern for tree-level Yang-Mills (YM) amplitudes proposed in the companion paper [1]. This pattern reveals a decomposition of amplitudes into a sum of gluings of lower-point amplitudes under specific kinematic constraints, making the hidden zeros of YM amplitudes manifest. Utilizing the Cachazo-He-Yuan (CHY) formalism, we rigorously derive these factorizations by systematically analyzing the contributions of singular solutions to the scattering equations. Through the identification and application of key algebraic identities, we demonstrate how cancellations among terms uncover a recursive structure intricately tied to the hidden zeros. This work not only conclusively validates the proposed factorization but also provides new insights into the geometric and algebraic organization of YM amplitudes within the CHY framework.

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)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies→French-language works237,207→