MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408665279 · doi:10.1007/jhep03(2025)144

The Born regime of gravitational amplitudes

2025· article· en· W4408665279 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Correia, Giulia Isabella

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGravitationAmplitudeQuantum electrodynamicsTheoretical physicsClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We study the 2 → 2 scattering in the regime where the wavelength of the scattered objects is comparable to their distance but is much larger than any Compton wavelength in the quantum field theory. We observe that in this regime — which differs from the eikonal — the Feynman diagram expansion takes the form of a geometric series, akin to the Born series of quantum mechanics. Conversely, we can define the Feynman diagram expansion as the Born series of a relativistic effective-one-body (EOB) Schrödinger equation. For a gravitational theory in this regime we observe that the EOB Schrödinger equation reduces to the Regge-Wheeler or Teukolsky wave equations. We make use of this understanding to study the tree-level Compton scattering off a Kerr black hole. We compute the scalar and photon Compton amplitude up to O ( a 30 ) in the black hole spin a and propose an all-order expression. Remarkably, we find that boundary terms, which are typically neglected, give non-zero contact pieces necessary for restoring crossing symmetry and gauge invariance of the Kerr-Compton amplitude.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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