MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409994448 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.086034

Uniqueness criteria for the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude

2025· article· en· W4409994448 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Clifford Cheung, Aaron Hillman, Grant N. Remmen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWalter Burke Institute for Theoretical PhysicsNew York UniversityYork UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsUniquenessAmplitudeMathematicsMathematical physicsPhysicsMathematical analysisQuantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scattering amplitudes of string theory exhibit many extraordinary properties. But are they the unique mathematical objects to do so? Recently, it has been shown how the spectrum and amplitudes of open string theory follow directly from the assumptions of faster than power-law falloff at high energies and a property dubbed level truncation. At present there is no analogous principle for closed string scattering, which is famously rigid and naively impervious to modification. In this paper we analytically bootstrap the spectrum and four-point amplitudes of the closed string—together with a parametrized space of deformations—from conditions on high-energy falloff and level truncation. While these deformations exhibit the same Regge scaling as pure gravity, in the tensionless limit they reproduce remarkable extremal amplitudes that have appeared in bottom-up studies of positivity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.422 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→