Tag Archives: academia

What You’re Actually Scared of in Impostor Syndrome

Academics tend to face a lot of impostor syndrome. Something about a job with no clear criteria for success, where you could always in principle do better and you mostly only see the cleaned-up, idealized version of others’ work, is a recipe for driving people utterly insane with fear.

The way most of us talk about that fear, it can seem like a cognitive bias, like a failure of epistemology. “Competent people think they’re less competent than they are,” the less-discussed half of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

(I’ve talked about it that way before. And, in an impostor-syndrome-inducing turn of events, I got quoted in a news piece in Nature about it.)

There’s something missing in that perspective, though. It doesn’t really get across how impostor syndrome feels. There’s something very raw about it, something that feels much more personal and urgent than an ordinary biased self-assessment.

To get at the core of it, let me ask a question: what happens to impostors?

The simple answer, the part everyone will admit to, is to say they stop getting grants, or stop getting jobs. Someone figures out they can’t do what they claim, and stops choosing them to receive limited resources. Pretty much anyone with impostor syndrome will say that they fear this: the moment that they reach too far, and the world decides they aren’t worth the money after all.

In practice, it’s not even clear that that happens. You might have people in your field who are actually thought of as impostors, on some level. People who get snarked about behind their back, people where everyone rolls their eyes when they ask a question at a conference and the question just never ends. People who are thought of as shiny storytellers without substance, who spin a tale for journalists but aren’t accomplishing anything of note. Those people…aren’t facing consequences at all, really! They keep getting the grants, they keep finding the jobs, and the ranks of people leaving for industry are instead mostly filled with those you respect.

Instead, I think what we fear when we feel impostor syndrome isn’t the obvious consequence, or even the real consequence, but something more primal. Primatologists and psychologists talk about our social brain, and the role of ostracism. They talk about baboons who piss off the alpha and get beat up and cast out of the group, how a social animal on their own risks starvation and becomes easy prey for bigger predators.

I think when we wake up in a cold sweat remembering how we had no idea what that talk was about, and were too afraid to ask, it’s a fear on that level that’s echoing around in our heads. That the grinding jags of adrenaline, the run-away-and-hide feeling of never being good enough, the desperate unsteadiness of trying to sound competent when you’re sure that you’re not and will get discovered at any moment…that’s not based on any realistic fears about what would happen if you got caught. That’s your monkey-brain, telling you a story drilled down deep by evolution.

Does that help? I’m not sure. If you manage to tell your inner monkey that it won’t get eaten by a lion if its friends stop liking it, let me know!

The Rocks in the Ground Era of Fundamental Physics

5 Replies

It’s no secret that the early twentieth century was a great time to make progress in fundamental physics. On one level, it was an era when huge swaths of our understanding of the world were being rewritten, with relativity and quantum mechanics just being explored. It was a time when a bright student could guide the emergence of whole new branches of scholarship, and recently discovered physical laws could influence world events on a massive scale.

Put that way, it sounds like it was a time of low-hanging fruit, the early days of a field when great strides can be made before the easy problems are all solved and only the hard ones are left. And that’s part of it, certainly: the fields sprung from that era have gotten more complex and challenging over time, requiring more specialized knowledge to make any kind of progress. But there is also a physical reason why physicists had such an enormous impact back then.

The early twentieth century was the last time that you could dig up a rock out of the ground, do some chemistry, and end up with a discovery about the fundamental laws of physics.

When scientists like Curie and Becquerel were working with uranium, they didn’t yet understand the nature of atoms. The distinctions between elements were described in qualitative terms, but only just beginning to be physically understood. That meant that a weird object in nature, “a weird rock”, could do quite a lot of interesting things.

And once you find a rock that does something physically unexpected, you can scale up. From the chemistry experiments of a single scientist’s lab, countries can build industrial processes to multiply the effect. Nuclear power and the bomb were such radical changes because they represented the end effect of understanding the nature of atoms, and atoms are something people could build factories to manipulate.

Scientists went on to push that understanding further. They wanted to know what the smallest pieces of matter were composed of, to learn the laws behind the most fundamental laws they knew. And with relativity and quantum mechanics, they could begin to do so systematically.

US particle physics has a nice bit of branding. They talk about three frontiers: the Energy Frontier, the Intensity Frontier, and the Cosmic Frontier.

Some things we can’t yet test in physics are gated by energy. If we haven’t discovered a particle, it may be because it’s unstable, decaying quickly into lighter particles so we can’t observe it in everyday life. If these particles interact appreciably with particles of everyday matter like protons and electrons, then we can try to make them in particle colliders. These end up creating pretty much everything up to a certain mass, due to a combination of the tendency in quantum mechanics for everything that can happen to happen, and relativity’s $E=mc^2$ . In the mid-20th century these particle colliders were serious pieces of machinery, but still small enough to make industrial: now, there are so-called medical accelerators in many hospitals based on their designs. But current particle accelerators are a different beast, massive facilities built by international collaborations. This is the Energy Frontier.

Some things in physics are gated by how rare they are. Some particles interact only very faintly with other particles, so to detect them, physicists have to scan a huge chunk of matter, a giant tank of argon or a kilometer of antarctic ice, looking for deviations from the norm. Over time, these experiments have gotten bigger, looking for more and more subtle effects. A few weird ones still fit on tabletops, but only because they have the tools to measure incredibly small variations. Most are gigantic. This is the Intensity Frontier.

Finally, the Cosmic Frontier looks for the unknown behind both kinds of gates, using the wider universe to look at events with extremely high energy or size.

Pushing these frontiers has meant cleaning up our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics up to these frontiers. It means that whatever is still hiding, it either requires huge amounts of energy to produce, or is an extremely rare, subtle effect.

That means that you shouldn’t expect another nuclear bomb out of fundamental physics. Physics experiments are already working on vast scales, to the extent that a secret government project would have to be smaller than publicly known experiments, in physical size, energy use, and budget. And you shouldn’t expect another nuclear power plant, either: we’ve long passed the kinds of things you could devise a clever industrial process to take advantage of at scale.

Instead, new fundamental physics will only be directly useful once we’re the kind of civilization that operates on a much greater scale than we do today. That means larger than the solar system: there wouldn’t be much advantage, at this point, of putting a particle physics experiment on the edge of the Sun. It means the kind of civilization that tosses galaxies around.

It means that right now, you won’t see militaries or companies pushing the frontiers of fundamental physics, unlike the way they might have wanted to at the dawn of the twentieth century. By the time fundamental physics is useful in that way, all of these actors will likely be radically different: companies, governments, and in all likelihood human beings themselves. Instead, supporting fundamental physics right now is an act of philanthropy, maintaining a practice because it maintains good habits of thought and produces powerful ideas, the same reasons organizations support mathematics or poetry. That’s not nothing, and fundamental physics is still often affordable as philanthropy goes. But it’s not changing the world, not the way physicists did in the early twentieth century.

Two Types of Scientific Fraud: for a Fee and for Power

1 Reply

A paper about scientific fraud has been making the rounds in social media lately. The authors gather evidence of large-scale networks of fraudsters across multiple fields, from teams of editors that fast-track fraudulent research to businesses that take over journals, sell spots for articles, and then move on to a new target when the journal is de-indexed. I’m not an expert in this kind of statistical sleuthing, but the work looks impressively thorough.

Still, I think the authors overplay their results a bit. They describe themselves as revealing something many scientists underestimate. They point to what they label as misconceptions: that scientific fraud is usually perpetrated alone by individual unethical scientists, or that it is almost entirely a problem of the developing world, and present their work as disproving those misconceptions. Listen to them, and you might get the feeling that science is rife with corruption, that no result, or scientist, can be trusted.

As far as I can tell, though, those “misconceptions” they identify are true. Someone who believes that scientific fraud is perpetrated by loners is probably right, as is someone who believes it largely takes place outside of the first world.

As is often the case, the problem is words.

“Scientific Fraud” is a single term for two different things. The two both involve bad actors twisting scientific activity. But in everything else — their incentives, their geography, their scale, and their consequences — they are dramatically different.

One of the types of scientific fraud is largely about power.

In references 84-89 of the paper, the authors give examples of large-scale scientific fraud in Europe and the US. All (except one, which I’ll mention later) are about the career of a single researcher. Each of these people systematically bent the truth, whether with dodgy statistics, doctored images, or inflating citation counts. Some seemed motivated to promote a particular scientific argument, cutting corners to push a particular conclusion through. Others were purer cases of self-promotion. These people often put pressure on students, postdocs, and other junior researchers in their orbits, which increases the scale of their impact. In some cases, their work rippled out to convince other researchers, prolonging bad ideas and strangling good ones. These were people with power, who leveraged that power to increase their power.

There also don’t appear to be that many of them. These people are loners in a meaningful sense, cores of fraud working on their own behalf. They don’t form networks with each other, for the most part: because they work towards their own aggrandizement, they have no reason to trust anyone else doing the same. I have yet to see evidence that the number of these people is increasing. They exist, they’re a problem, they’re important to watch out for. But they’re not a crisis, and they shouldn’t shift your default expectations of science.

The other, quite different, type of scientific fraud is fraud for a fee.

The cases this paper investigates seem to fall into this category. They are businesses, offering the raw material of academic credit (papers, co-authorship, citations, publication) for cash. They’re paper mills, of various sorts. These are, at least from an academic perspective, large organizations, with hundreds or thousands of customers and tens of suborned editors or scientists farming out their credibility. As the authors of this paper argue, fraudsters of this type are churning out more and more papers, potentially now fueled by AI, adding up to a still small, but non-negligible, proportion of scientific papers in total.

Compared to the first type of fraud, though, buying credit in this way doesn’t give very much power. As the paper describes, many of the papers churned out by paper mills don’t even go into relevant journals: for example, they mention “an article about roasting hazelnuts in a journal about HIV/AIDS care”. An article like that isn’t going to mislead the hazelnut roasting community, or the HIV/AIDS community. Indeed, that would be counter to its purpose. The paper isn’t intended to be read at all, and ideally gets ignored: it’s just supposed to inflate a number.

These numbers are most relevant in the developing world, and when push comes to shove, almost all of the buyers of these services identified by the authors of this paper come from there. In many developing countries, a combination of low trust and advice from economists leads to explicit point systems, where academics are paid or hired explicitly based on criteria like where and how often they publish or how they are cited. The more a country can trust people to vouch for each other without corruption, the less these kinds of incentives have purchase. Outside of the developing world, involvement in paper mills and the like generally seems to involve a much smaller number of people, and typically as sellers, not buyers: selling first-world credibility in exchange for fees from many developing-world applicants.

(The one reference I mentioned above is an interesting example of this: a system built out of points and low trust to recruit doctors from the developing world to the US, gamed by a small number of co-authorship brokers.)

This kind of fraud doesn’t influence science directly. Its perpetrators aren’t trying to get noticed, but to keep up a cushy scam. You don’t hear their conclusions in the press, other scientists don’t see their work. Instead, they siphon off resources: cannibalizing journals, flooding editors with mass-produced crap, and filling positions and slurping up science budgets in the countries that can least afford them. As they publish more and more, they shouldn’t affect your expectations of the credibility of science: any science you hear about will be either genuine, or fraud from the other category. But they do make the science you hear about harder and harder to do.

(The authors point out one exception: what about AI? If a company trains a large language model on the current internet, will its context windows be long enough to tell that that supposedly legitimate paper about hazelnuts is in an HIV/AIDS journal? If something gets said often enough, copied again and again in papers sold by a mill, will an AI trained on all these papers be convinced? Presumably, someone is being paid good money to figure out how to filter AI-generated slop from training data: can they filter paper mill fraud as well?)

It’s a shame that we have one term, scientific fraud, to deal with these two very different things. But it’s important to keep in mind that they are different. Fraud for power and fraud for money can have very different profiles, and offer very different risks. If you don’t trust a scientific result, it’s worth understanding what might be at play.

Newsworthiness Bias

1 Reply

I had a chat about journalism recently, and I had a realization about just how weird science journalism, in particular, is.

Journalists aren’t supposed to be cheerleaders. Journalism and PR have very different goals (which is why I keep those sides of my work separate). A journalist is supposed to be uncompromising, to write the truth even if it paints the source in a bad light.

Norms are built around this. Serious journalistic outlets usually don’t let sources see pieces before they’re published. The source doesn’t have the final say in how they’re portrayed: the journalist reserves the right to surprise them if justified. Investigative journalists can be superstars, digging up damning secrets about the powerful.

When a journalist starts a project, the piece might turn out positive, or negative. A politician might be the best path forward, or a disingenuous grifter. A business might be a great investment opportunity, or a total scam. A popular piece of art might be a triumph, or a disappointment.

And a scientific result?

It might be a fraud, of course. Scientific fraud does exist, and is a real problem. But it’s not common, really. Pick a random scientific paper, filter by papers you might consider reporting on in the first place, and you’re very unlikely to find a fraudulent result. Science journalists occasionally report on spectacularly audacious scientific frauds, or frauds in papers that have already made the headlines. But you don’t expect fraud in the average paper you cover.

It might be scientifically misguided: flawed statistics, a gap in a proof, a misuse of concepts. Journalists aren’t usually equipped to ferret out these issues, though. Instead, this is handled in principle by peer review, and in practice by the scientific community outside of the peer review process.

Instead, for a scientific result, the most common negative judgement isn’t that it’s a lie, or a mistake. It’s that it’s boring.

And certainly, a good science journalist can judge a paper as boring. But there is a key difference between doing that, and judging a politician as crooked or a popular work of art as mediocre. You can write an article about the lying candidate for governor, or the letdown Tarantino movie. But if a scientific result is boring, and nobody else has covered it…then it isn’t newsworthy.

In science, people don’t usually publish their failures, their negative results, their ho-hum obvious conclusions. That fills the literature with only the successes, a phenomenon called publication bias. It also means, though, that scientists try to make their results sound more successful, more important and interesting, than they actually are. Some of the folks fighting the replication crisis have coined a term for this: they call it importance hacking.

The same incentives apply to journalists, especially freelancers. Starting out, it was far from clear that I could make enough to live on. I felt like I had to make every lead count, to find a newsworthy angle on every story idea I could find, because who knew when I would find another one? Over time, I learned to balance that pull better. Now that I’m making most of my income from consulting instead, the pressure has eased almost entirely: there are things I’m tempted to importance-hack for the sake of friends, but nothing that I need to importance-hack to stay in the black.

Doing journalism on the side may be good for me personally at the moment, but it’s not really a model. Much like we need career scientists, even if their work is sometimes boring, we need career journalists, even if they’re sometimes pressured to overhype.

So if we don’t want to incentivize science journalists to be science cheerleaders, what can we do instead?

In science, one way to address publication bias is with pre-registered studies. A scientist sets out what they plan to test, and a journal agrees to publish the result, no matter what it is. You could imagine something like this for science journalism. I once proposed a recurring column where every month I would cover a random paper from arXiv.org, explaining what it meant to accomplish. I get why the idea was turned down, but I still think about it.

In journalism, the arts offer the closest parallel with a different approach. There are many negative reviews of books, movies, and music, and most of them merely accuse the art of being boring, not evil. These exist because they focus on popular works that people pay attention to anyway, so that any negative coverage has someone to convince. You could imagine applying this model to science, though it could be a bit silly. I’m envisioning a journalist who writes an article every time Witten publishes, rating some papers impressive and others disappointing, the same way a music journalist might cover every Taylor Swift album.

Neither of these models are really satisfactory. You could imagine an even more adversarial model, where journalists run around accusing random scientists of wasting the government’s money, but that seems dramatically worse.

So I’m not sure. Science is weird, and hard to accurately value: if we knew how much something mattered already, it would be engineering, not science. Journalism is weird: it’s public-facing research, where the public facing is the whole point. Their combination? Even weirder.

Value in Formal Theory Land

1 Reply

What makes a physics theory valuable?

You may think that a theory’s job is to describe reality, to be true. If that’s the goal, we have a whole toolbox of ways to assess its value. We can check if it makes predictions and if those predictions are confirmed. We can assess whether the theory can cheat to avoid the consequences of its predictions (falsifiability) and whether its complexity is justified by the evidence (Occam’s razor, and statistical methods that follow from it).

But not every theory in physics can be assessed this way.

Some theories aren’t even trying to be true. Others may hope to have evidence some day, but are clearly not there yet, either because the tests are too hard or the theory hasn’t been fleshed out enough.

Some people specialize in theories like these. We sometimes say they’re doing “formal theory”, working with the form of theories rather than whether they describe the world.

Physics isn’t mathematics. Work in formal theory is still supposed to help describe the real world. But that help might take a long time to arrive. Until then, how can formal theorists know which theories are valuable?

One option is surprise. After years tinkering with theories, a formal theorist will have some idea of which sorts of theories are possible and which aren’t. Some of this is intuition and experience, but sometimes it comes in the form of an actual “no-go theorem”, a proof that a specific kind of theory cannot be consistent.

Intuition and experience can be wrong, though. Even no-go theorems are fallible, both because they have assumptions which can be evaded and because people often assume they go further than they do. So some of the most valuable theories are valuable because they are surprising: because they do something that many experienced theorists think is impossible.

Another option is usefulness. Here I’m not talking about technology: these are theories that may or may not describe the real world and can’t be tested in feasible experiments, they’re not being used for technology! But they can certainly be used by other theorists. They can show better ways to make predictions from other theories, or better ways to check other theories for contradictions. They can be a basis that other theories are built on.

I remember, back before my PhD, hearing about the consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics. I hadn’t heard much about it, but I did hear that it allowed calculations that other interpretations didn’t. At the time, I thought this was an obvious improvement: surely, if you can’t choose based on observations, you should at least choose an interpretation that is useful. In practice, it doesn’t quite live up to the hype. The things it allows you to calculate are things other interpretations would say don’t make sense to ask, questions like “what was the history of the universe” instead of observations you can test like “what will I see next?” But still, being able to ask new questions has proven useful to some, and kept a community interested.

Often, formal theories are judged on vaguer criteria. There’s a notion of explanatory power, of making disparate effects more intuitively part of the same whole. There’s elegance, or beauty, which is the theorist’s Occam’s razor, favoring ideas that do more with less. And there’s pure coolness, where a bunch of nerds are going to lean towards ideas that let them play with wormholes and multiverses.

But surprise, and usefulness, feel more solid to me. If you can find someone who says “I didn’t think this was possible”, then you’ve almost certainly done something valuable. And if you can’t do that, “I’d like to use this” is an excellent recommendation too.

Amplitudes 2025 This Week

1 Reply

Summer is conference season for academics, and this week held my old sub-field’s big yearly conference, called Amplitudes. This year, it was in Seoul at Seoul National University, the first time the conference has been in Asia.

(I wasn’t there, I don’t go to these anymore. But I’ve been skimming slides in my free time, to give you folks the updates you crave. Be forewarned that conference posts like these get technical fast, I’ll be back to my usual accessible self next week.)

There isn’t a huge amplitudes community in Korea, but it’s bigger than it was back when I got started in the field. Of the organizers, Kanghoon Lee of the Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics and Sangmin Lee of Seoul National University have what I think of as “core amplitudes interests”, like recursion relations and the double-copy. The other Korean organizers are from adjacent areas, work that overlaps with amplitudes but doesn’t show up at the conference each year. There was also a sizeable group of organizers from Taiwan, where there has been a significant amplitudes presence for some time now. I do wonder if Korea was chosen as a compromise between a conference hosted in Taiwan or in mainland China, where there is also quite a substantial amplitudes community.

One thing that impresses me every year is how big, and how sophisticated, the gravitational-wave community in amplitudes has grown. Federico Buccioni’s talk began with a plot that illustrates this well (though that wasn’t his goal):

At the conference Amplitudes, dedicated to the topic of scattering amplitudes, there were almost as many talks with the phrase “black hole” in the title as there were with “scattering” or “amplitudes”! This is for a topic that did not even exist in the subfield when I got my PhD eleven years ago.

With that said, gravitational wave astronomy wasn’t quite as dominant at the conference as Buccioni’s bar chart suggests. There were a few talks each day on the topic: I counted seven in total, excluding any short talks on the subject in the gong show. Spinning black holes were a significant focus, central to Jung-Wook Kim’s, Andres Luna’s and Mao Zeng’s talks (the latter two showing some interesting links between the amplitudes story and classic ideas in classical mechanics) and relevant in several others, with Riccardo Gonzo, Miguel Correia, Ira Rothstein, and Enrico Herrmann’s talks showing not just a wide range of approaches, but an increasing depth of research in this area.

Herrmann’s talk in particular dealt with detector event shapes, a framework that lets physicists think more directly about what a specific particle detector or observer can see. He applied the idea not just to gravitational waves but to quantum gravity and collider physics as well. The latter is historically where this idea has been applied the most thoroughly, as highlighted in Hua Xing Zhu’s talk, where he used them to pick out particular phenomena of interest in QCD.

QCD is, of course, always of interest in the amplitudes field. Buccioni’s talk dealt with the theory’s behavior at high-energies, with a nice example of the “maximal transcendentality principle” where some quantities in QCD are identical to quantities in N=4 super Yang-Mills in the “most transcendental” pieces (loosely, those with the highest powers of pi). Andrea Guerreri’s talk also dealt with high-energy behavior in QCD, trying to address an experimental puzzle where QCD results appeared to violate a fundamental bound all sensible theories were expected to obey. By using S-matrix bootstrap techniques, they clarify the nature of the bound, finding that QCD still obeys it once correctly understood, and conjecture a weird theory that should be possible to frame right on the edge of the bound. The S-matrix bootstrap was also used by Alexandre Homrich, who talked about getting the framework to work for multi-particle scattering.

Heribertus Bayu Hartanto is another recent addition to Korea’s amplitudes community. He talked about a concrete calculation, two-loop five-particle scattering including top quarks, a tricky case that includes elliptic curves.

When amplitudes lead to integrals involving elliptic curves, many standard methods fail. Jake Bourjaily’s talk raised a question he has brought up again and again: what does it mean to do an integral for a new type of function? One possible answer is that it depends on what kind of numerics you can do, and since more general numerical methods can be cumbersome one often needs to understand the new type of function in more detail. In light of that, Stephen Jones’ talk was interesting in taking a common problem often cited with generic approaches (that they have trouble with the complex numbers introduced by Minkowski space) and finding a more natural way in a particular generic approach (sector decomposition) to take them into account. Giulio Salvatori talked about a much less conventional numerical method, linked to the latest trend in Nima-ology, surfaceology. One of the big selling points of the surface integral framework promoted by people like Salvatori and Nima Arkani-Hamed is that it’s supposed to give a clear integral to do for each scattering amplitude, one which should be amenable to a numerical treatment recently developed by Michael Borinsky. Salvatori can currently apply the method only to a toy model (up to ten loops!), but he has some ideas for how to generalize it, which will require handling divergences and numerators.

Other approaches to the “problem of integration” included Anna-Laura Sattelberger’s talk that presented a method to find differential equations for the kind of integrals that show up in amplitudes using the mathematical software Macaulay2, including presenting a package. Matthias Wilhelm talked about the work I did with him, using machine learning to find better methods for solving integrals with integration-by-parts, an area where two other groups have now also published. Pierpaolo Mastrolia talked about integration-by-parts’ up-and-coming contender, intersection theory, a method which appears to be delving into more mathematical tools in an effort to catch up with its competitor.

Sometimes, one is more specifically interested in the singularities of integrals than their numerics more generally. Felix Tellander talked about a geometric method to pin these down which largely went over my head, but he did have a very nice short description of the approach: “Describe the singularities of the integrand. Find a map representing integration. Map the singularities of the integrand onto the singularities of the integral.”

While QCD and gravity are the applications of choice, amplitudes methods germinate in N=4 super Yang-Mills. Ruth Britto’s talk opened the conference with an overview of progress along those lines before going into her own recent work with one-loop integrals and interesting implications of ideas from cluster algebras. Cluster algebras made appearances in several other talks, including Anastasia Volovich’s talk which discussed how ideas from that corner called flag cluster algebras may give insights into QCD amplitudes, though some symbol letters still seem to be hard to track down. Matteo Parisi covered another idea, cluster promotion maps, which he thinks may help pin down algebraic symbol letters.

The link between cluster algebras and symbol letters is an ongoing mystery where the field is seeing progress. Another symbol letter mystery is antipodal duality, where flipping an amplitude like a palindrome somehow gives another valid amplitude. Lance Dixon has made progress in understanding where this duality comes from, finding a toy model where it can be understood and proved.

Others pushed the boundaries of methods specific to N=4 super Yang-Mills, looking for novel structures. Song He’s talk pushes an older approach by Bourjaily and collaborators up to twelve loops, finding new patterns and connections to other theories and observables. Qinglin Yang bootstraps Wilson loops with a Lagrangian insertion, adding a side to the polygon used in previous efforts and finding that, much like when you add particles to amplitudes in a bootstrap, the method gets stricter and more powerful. Jaroslav Trnka talked about work he has been doing with “negative geometries”, an odd method descended from the amplituhedron that looks at amplitudes from a totally different perspective, probing a bit of their non-perturbative data. He’s finding more parts of that setup that can be accessed and re-summed, finding interestingly that multiple-zeta-values show up in quantities where we know they ultimately cancel out. Livia Ferro also talked about a descendant of the amplituhedron, this time for cosmology, getting differential equations for cosmological observables in a particular theory from a combinatorial approach.

Outside of everybody’s favorite theories, some speakers talked about more general approaches to understanding the differences between theories. Andreas Helset covered work on the geometry of the space of quantum fields in a theory, applying the method to a general framework for characterizing deviations from the standard model called the SMEFT. Jasper Roosmale Nepveu also talked about a general space of theories, thinking about how positivity (a trait linked to fundamental constraints like causality and unitarity) gets tangled up with loop effects, and the implications this has for renormalization.

Soft theorems, universal behavior of amplitudes when a particle has low energy, continue to be a trendy topic, with Silvia Nagy showing how the story continues to higher orders and Sangmin Choi investigating loop effects. Callum Jones talks about one of the more powerful results from the soft limit, Weinberg’s theorem showing the uniqueness of gravity. Weinberg’s proof was set up in Minkowski space, but we may ultimately live in curved, de Sitter space. Jones showed how the ideas Weinberg explored generalize in de Sitter, using some tools from the soft-theorem-inspired field of dS/CFT. Julio Parra-Martinez, meanwhile, tied soft theorems to another trendy topic, higher symmetries, a more general notion of the usual types of symmetries that physicists have explored in the past. Lucia Cordova reported work that was not particularly connected to soft theorems but was connected to these higher symmetries, showing how they interact with crossing symmetry and the S-matrix bootstrap.

Finally, a surprisingly large number of talks linked to Kevin Costello and Natalie Paquette’s work with self-dual gauge theories, where they found exact solutions from a fairly mathy angle. Paquette gave an update on her work on the topic, while Alfredo Guevara talked about applications to black holes, comparing the power of expanding around a self-dual gauge theory to that of working with supersymmetry. Atul Sharma looked at scattering in self-dual backgrounds in work that merges older twistor space ideas with the new approach, while Roland Bittelson talked about calculating around an instanton background.

Also, I had another piece up this week at FirstPrinciples, based on an interview with the (outgoing) president of the Sloan Foundation. I won’t have a “bonus info” post for this one, as most of what I learned went into the piece. But if you don’t know what the Sloan Foundation does, take a look! I hadn’t known they funded Jupyter notebooks and Hidden Figures, or that they introduced Kahneman and Tversky.

Publishing Isn’t Free, but SciPost Makes It Cheaper

5 Replies

I’ve mentioned SciPost a few times on this blog. They’re an open journal in every sense you could think of: diamond open-access scientific publishing on an open-source platform, run with open finances. They even publish their referee reports. They’re aiming to cover not just a few subjects, but a broad swath of academia, publishing scientists’ work in the most inexpensive and principled way possible and challenging the dominance of for-profit journals.

And they’re struggling.

SciPost doesn’t charge university libraries for access, they let anyone read their articles for free. And they don’t charge authors Article Processing Charges (or APCs), they let anyone publish for free. All they do is keep track of which institutions those authors are affiliated with, calculate what fraction of their total costs comes from them, and post it in a nice searchable list on their website.

And amazingly, for the last nine years, they’ve been making that work.

SciPost encourages institutions to pay their share, mostly by encouraging authors to bug their bosses until they do. SciPost will also quite happily accept more than an institution’s share, and a few generous institutions do just that, which is what has kept them afloat so far. But since nothing compels anyone to pay, most organizations simply don’t.

From an economist’s perspective, this is that most basic of problems, the free-rider problem. People want scientific publication to be free, but it isn’t. Someone has to pay, and if you don’t force someone to do it, then the few who pay will be exploited by the many who don’t.

There’s more worth saying, though.

First, it’s worth pointing out that SciPost isn’t paying the same cost everyone else pays to publish. SciPost has a stripped-down system, without any physical journals or much in-house copyediting, based entirely on their own open-source software. As a result, they pay about 500 euros per article. Compare this to the fees negotiated by particle physics’ SCOAP3 agreement, which average to closer to 1000 euros, and realize that those fees are on the low end: for-profit journals tend to make their APCs higher in order to, well, make a profit.

(By the way, while it’s tempting to think of for-profit journals as greedy, I think it’s better to think of them as not cost-effective. Profit is an expense, like the interest on a loan: a payment to investors in exchange for capital used to set up the business. The thing is, online journals don’t seem to need that kind of capital, especially when they’re based on code written by academics in their spare time. So they can operate more cheaply as nonprofits.)

So when an author publishes in SciPost instead of a journal with APCs, they’re saving someone money, typically their institution or their grant. This would happen even if their institution paid their share of SciPost’s costs. (But then they would pay something rather than nothing, hence free-rider problem.)

If an author instead would have published in a closed-access journal, the kind where you have to pay to read the articles and university libraries pay through the nose to get access? Then you don’t save any money at all, your library still has to pay for the journal. You only save money if everybody at the institution stops using the journal. This one is instead a collective action problem.

Collective action problems are hard, and don’t often have obvious solutions. Free-rider problems do suggest an obvious solution: why not just charge?

In SciPost’s case, there are philosophical commitments involved. Their desire to attribute costs transparently and equally means dividing a journal’s cost among all its authors’ institutions, a cost only fully determined at the end of the year, which doesn’t make for an easy invoice.

More to the point, though, charging to publish is directly against what the Open Access movement is about.

That takes some unpacking, because of course, someone does have to pay. It probably seems weird to argue that institutions shouldn’t have to pay charges to publish papers…instead, they should pay to publish papers.

SciPost itself doesn’t go into detail about this, but despite how weird it sounds when put like I just did, there is a difference. Charging a fee to publish means that anyone who publishes needs to pay a fee. If you’re working in a developing country on a shoestring budget, too bad, you have to pay the fee. If you’re an amateur mathematician who works in a truck stop and just puzzled through something amazing, too bad, you have to pay the fee.

Instead of charging a fee, SciPost asks for support. I have to think that part of the reason is that they want some free riders. There are some people who would absolutely not be able to participate in science without free riding, and we want their input nonetheless. That means to support them, others need to give more. It means organizations need to think about SciPost not as just another fee, but as a way they can support the scientific process as a whole.

That’s how other things work, like the arXiv. They get support from big universities and organizations and philanthropists, not from literally everyone. It seems a bit weird to do that for a single scientific journal among many, though, which I suspect is part of why institutions are reluctant to do it. But for a journal that can save money like SciPost, maybe it’s worth it.

AI Can’t Do Science…And Neither Can Other Humans

6 Replies

Seen on Twitter:

AI cannot in principle do science but it can be used as a tool to help process data. AI is not autonomous, & does not come up with its own problems to solve. That’s so obvious if you don’t understand you need to do some philosophy.
— Prof. Lee Cronin (@leecronin) March 9, 2025

I don’t know the context here, so I can’t speak to what Prof. Cronin meant. But it got me thinking.

Suppose you, like Prof. Cronin, were to insist that AI “cannot in principle” do science, because AI “is not autonomous” and “does not come up with its own problems to solve”. What might you mean?

You might just be saying that AI is bad at coming up with new problems to solve. That’s probably fair, at least at the moment. People have experimented with creating simple “AI researchers” that “study” computer programs, coming up with hypotheses about the programs’ performance and testing them. But it’s a long road from that to reproducing the much higher standards human scientists have to satisfy.

You probably don’t mean that, though. If you did, you wouldn’t have said “in principle”. You mean something stronger.

More likely, you might mean that AI cannot come up with its own problems, because AI is a tool. People come up with problems, and use AI to help solve them. In this perspective, not only is AI “not autonomous”, it cannot be autonomous.

On a practical level, this is clearly false. Yes, machine learning models, the core technology in current AI, are set up to answer questions. A user asks something, and receives the model’s prediction of the answer. That’s a tool, but for the more flexible models like GPT it’s trivial to turn it into something autonomous. Just add another program: a loop that asks the model what to do, does it, tells the model the result, and asks what to do next. Like taping a knife to a Roomba, you’ve made a very simple modification to make your technology much more dangerous.

You might object, though, that this simple modification of GPT is not really autonomous. After all, a human created it. That human had some goal, some problem they wanted to solve, and the AI is just solving the problem for them.

That may be a fair description of current AI, but insisting it’s true in principle has some awkward implications. If you make a “physics AI”, just tell it to do “good physics”, and it starts coming up with hypotheses you’d never thought of, is it really fair to say it’s just solving your problem?

What if the AI, instead, was a child? Picture a physicist encouraging a child to follow in their footsteps, filling their life with physics ideas and rhapsodizing about the hard problems of the field at the dinner table. Suppose the child becomes a physicist in turn, and finds success later in life. Were they really autonomous? Were they really a scientist?

What if the child, instead, was a scientific field, and the parent was the general public? The public votes for representatives, the representatives vote to hire agencies, and the agencies promise scientists they’ll give them money if they like the problems they come up with. Who is autonomous here?

(And what happens if someone takes a hammer to that process? I’m…still not talking about this! No-politics-rule still in effect, sorry! I do have a post planned, but it will have to wait until I can deal with the fallout.)

At this point, you’d probably stop insisting. You’d drop that “in principle”, and stick with the claim I started with, that current AI can’t be a scientist.

But you have another option.

You can accept the whole chain of awkward implications, bite all the proverbial bullets. Yes, you insist, AI is not autonomous. Neither is the physicist’s child in your story, and neither are the world’s scientists paid by government grants. Each is a tool, used by the one, true autonomous scientist: you.

You are stuck in your skull, a blob of curious matter trained on decades of experience in the world and pre-trained with a couple billion years of evolution. For whatever reason, you want to know more, so you come up with problems to solve. You’re probably pretty vague about those problems. You might want to see more pretty pictures of space, or wrap your head around the nature of time. So you turn the world into your tool. You vote and pay taxes, so your government funds science. You subscribe to magazines and newspapers, so you hear about it. You press out against the world, and along with the pressure that already exists it adds up, and causes change. Biological intelligences and artificial intelligences scurry at your command. From their perspective, they are proposing their own problems, much more detailed and complex than the problems you want to solve. But from yours, they’re your limbs beyond limbs, sight beyond sight, asking the fundamental questions you want answered.

Physics Gets Easier, Then Harder

Ways Freelance Journalism Is Different From Academic Writing

2 Replies

A while back, I was surprised when I saw the writer of a well-researched webcomic assume that academics are paid for their articles. I ended up writing a post explaining how academic publishing actually works.

Now that I’m out of academia, I’m noticing some confusion on the other side. I’m doing freelance journalism, and the academics I talk to tend to have some common misunderstandings. So academics, this post is for you: a FAQ of questions I’ve been asked about freelance journalism. Freelance journalism is more varied than academia, and I’ve only been doing it a little while, so all of my answers will be limited to my experience.

Q: What happens first? Do they ask you to write something? Do you write an article and send it to them?

Academics are used to writing an article, then sending it to a journal, which sends it out to reviewers to decide whether to accept it. In freelance journalism in my experience, you almost never write an article before it’s accepted. (I can think of one exception I’ve run into, and that was for an opinion piece.)

Sometimes, an editor reaches out to a freelancer and asks them to take on an assignment to write a particular sort of article. This happens more freelancers that have been working with particular editors for a long time. I’m new to this, so the majority of the time I have to “pitch”. That means I email an editor describing the kind of piece I want to write. I give a short description of the topic and why it’s interesting. If the editor is interested, they’ll ask some follow-up questions, then tell me what they want me to focus on, how long the piece should be, and how much they’ll pay me. (The last two are related, many places pay by the word.) After that, I can write a draft.

Q: Wait, you’re paid by the word? Then why not make your articles super long, like Victor Hugo?

I’m paid per word assigned, not per word in the finished piece. The piece doesn’t have to strictly stick to the word limit, but it should be roughly the right size, and I work with the editor to try to get it there. In practice, places seem to have a few standard size ranges and internal terminology for what they are (“blog”, “essay”, “short news”, “feature”). These aren’t always the same as the categories readers see online. Some places have a web page listing these categories for prospective freelancers, but many don’t, so you have to either infer them from the lengths of articles online or learn them over time from the editors.

Q: Why didn’t you mention this important person or idea?

Because pieces pay more by the word, it’s easier as a freelancer to sell shorter pieces than longer ones. For science news, favoring shorter pieces also makes some pedagogical sense. People usually take away only a few key messages from a piece, if you try to pack in too much you run a serious risk of losing people. After I’ve submitted a draft, I work with the editor to polish it, and usually that means cutting off side-stories and “by-the-ways” to make the key points as vivid as possible.

Q: Do you do those cool illustrations?

Academia has a big focus on individual merit. The expectation is that when you write something, you do almost all of the work yourself, to the extent that more programming-heavy fields like physics and math do their own typesetting.

Industry, including journalism, is more comfortable delegating. Places will generally have someone on-staff to handle illustrations. I suggest diagrams that could be helpful to the piece and do a sketch of what they could look like, but it’s someone else’s job to turn that into nice readable graphic design.

Q: Why is the title like that? Why doesn’t that sound like you?

Editors in journalistic outlets are much more involved than in academic journals. Editors won’t just suggest edits, they’ll change wording directly and even input full sentences of their own. The title and subtitle of a piece in particular can change a lot (in part because they impact SEO), and in some places these can be changed by the editor quite late in the process. I’ve had a few pieces whose title changed after I’d signed off on them, or even after they first appeared.

Q: Are your pieces peer-reviewed?

The news doesn’t have peer review, no. Some places, like Quanta Magazine, do fact-checking. Quanta pays independent fact-checkers for longer pieces, while for shorter pieces it’s the writer’s job to verify key facts, confirming dates and the accuracy of quotes.

Q: Can you show me the piece before it’s published, so I can check it?

That’s almost never an option. Journalists tend to have strict rules about showing a piece before it’s published, related to more political areas where they want to preserve the ability to surprise wrongdoers and the independence to find their own opinions. Science news seems like it shouldn’t require this kind of thing as much, it’s not like we normally write hit pieces. But we’re not publicists either.

In a few cases, I’ve had people who were worried about something being conveyed incorrectly, or misleadingly. For those, I offer to do more in the fact-checking stage. I can sometimes show you quotes or paraphrase how I’m describing something, to check whether I’m getting something wrong. But under no circumstances can I show you the full text.

Q: What can I do to make it more likely I’ll get quoted?

Pieces are short, and written for a general, if educated, audience. Long quotes are harder to use because they eat into word count, and quotes with technical terms are harder to use because we try to limit the number of terms we ask the reader to remember. Quotes that mention a lot of concepts can be harder to find a place for, too: concepts are introduced gradually over the piece, so a quote that mentions almost everything that comes up will only make sense to the reader at the very end.

In a science news piece, quotes can serve a couple different roles. They can give authority, an expert’s judgement confirming that something is important or real. They can convey excitement, letting the reader see a scientist’s emotions. And sometimes, they can give an explanation. This last only happens when the explanation is very efficient and clear. If the journalist can give a better explanation, they’re likely to use that instead.

So if you want to be quoted, keep that in mind. Try to say things that are short and don’t use a lot of technical jargon or bring in too many concepts at once. Convey judgement, which things are important and why, and convey passion, what drives you and excited you about a topic. I am allowed to edit quotes down, so I can take a piece of a longer quote that’s cleaner or cut a long list of examples from an otherwise compelling statement. I can correct grammar and get rid of filler words and obvious mistakes. But I can’t put words in your mouth, I have to work with what you actually said, and if you don’t say anything I can use then you won’t get quoted.

4 gravitons

Stories about physics from someone who's been there

Tag Archives: academia

What You’re Actually Scared of in Impostor Syndrome

The Rocks in the Ground Era of Fundamental Physics

Two Types of Scientific Fraud: for a Fee and for Power

Newsworthiness Bias

Value in Formal Theory Land

Amplitudes 2025 This Week

Publishing Isn’t Free, but SciPost Makes It Cheaper

AI Can’t Do Science…And Neither Can Other Humans

Physics Gets Easier, Then Harder

Ways Freelance Journalism Is Different From Academic Writing