Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by lupsasca on Friday February 13, 2026 @04:43PM
(#47008239)
Hi I am an author of the paper. We believed that a simple formula should exist but had not been able to find it despite significant effort. It was a collaborative effort but GPT definitely solved the problem for us.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by buttered_toast on Friday February 13, 2026 @04:48PM
(#47008290)
Oh that's really cool, I am not versed in physics by any means, can you explain how you believed there to be a simple formula but were unable to find it? What would lead you to believe that instead of just accepting it at face value?
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by lupsasca on Friday February 13, 2026 @04:57PM
(#47008388)
There are closely related "MHV amplitudes" which naively obey a really complicated formula, but for which there famously also exists a much simpler "Parke-Taylor formula". Alfredo had derived a complicated expression for these new "single-minus amplitudes" and we were hoping we could find an analogue of the simpler "Parke-Taylor formula" for them.
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by buttered_toast on Friday February 13, 2026 @05:00PM
(#47008415)
Thank you for taking the time to reply, I see you might have already answered this elsewhere so it's much appreciated.
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by lupsasca on Friday February 13, 2026 @06:26PM
(#47009249)
My pleasure---thank you for your interest!
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by etraql on Friday February 13, 2026 @05:41PM
(#47008829)
Do you also work at OpenAI? A comment pointing that out was flagged by the LLM marketers.
Re:GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics
by buttered_toast on Friday February 13, 2026 @06:32PM
(#47009306)
I think it says in the paper that he does, but it's also public knowledge.