MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414032414 · doi:10.1007/jhep09(2025)052

Causality bounds from charged shockwaves in 5d

2025· article· en· W4414032414 on OpenAlexaff
Sera Cremonini, Brian McPeak, Mohammad Moezzi, Muthusamy Rajaguru

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEuropean CommissionLehigh UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsCausality (physics)Theoretical physicsStatistical physicsParticle physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract Effective field theories are constrained by the requirement that their constituents never move superluminally on non-trivial backgrounds. In this paper, we study time delays experienced by photons propagating on charged shockwave backgrounds in five dimensions. In the absence of gravity — where the shockwaves are electric fields sourced by boosted charges — we derive positivity bounds for the four-derivative corrections to electromagnetism, reproducing previous results derived from scattering amplitudes. By considering the gravitational shockwaves sourced by Reissner-Nordström black holes, we derive new constraints in the presence of gravity. We observe the by-now familiar weakening of positivity bounds in the presence of gravity, but without the logarithmic divergences present in 4d. We find that the strongest bounds appear by examining the time delay near the horizon of the smallest possible black hole, and discuss on the validity of the EFT expansion in this region. We comment on our bounds in the context of the swampland program as well as their relation with the positivity bounds obtained from dispersion relations.

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)0.007
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→