a much more revelatory exercise would be to compare these derived values with measured values, then construct testable hypotheses regarding disparities.
If you have to ask people whether or not your preprint resembles curve-fitting, you have just self-reported that you are an AI user with no academic background.
Good luck with the peer review, you're gonna need it.
I have reported nothing but numerical results. Making assumptions about me instead of looking at the numbers says more about your background than it does about mine.
> The author declares the intensive and extensive use of Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.0 Pro (Google) and sincerely thanks its unlimited interlocution capacity. The author declares as their own responsibility the abstract formulation of the research, the conceptual guidance, and the decision-making in case of intellectual dilemma. The AI performed the mathematical verification of the multiple hypotheses considered throughout the process, but the author is solely responsible for the final content of this article. The prompts are not declared because they number in the thousands, because they are not entirely preserved, and because they contain elements that are part of the author’s privacy.
Based on your pre-previous post, this is nothing.
Your contribution is the opposite of "something".
a much more revelatory exercise would be to compare these derived values with measured values, then construct testable hypotheses regarding disparities.
That's precisely what the numbers show. "Pred:", predicted value. "Exp:", experimental value. "Diff", difference.
the next step is, why?
what assumptions does your current model make. what could change that would eliminate disparity. What plausible mechanisms explain [Diff]?
If you have to ask people whether or not your preprint resembles curve-fitting, you have just self-reported that you are an AI user with no academic background.
Good luck with the peer review, you're gonna need it.
I have reported nothing but numerical results. Making assumptions about me instead of looking at the numbers says more about your background than it does about mine.
From the manuscript linked in your profile:
> The author declares the intensive and extensive use of Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.0 Pro (Google) and sincerely thanks its unlimited interlocution capacity. The author declares as their own responsibility the abstract formulation of the research, the conceptual guidance, and the decision-making in case of intellectual dilemma. The AI performed the mathematical verification of the multiple hypotheses considered throughout the process, but the author is solely responsible for the final content of this article. The prompts are not declared because they number in the thousands, because they are not entirely preserved, and because they contain elements that are part of the author’s privacy.
This seems properly copied and pasted. Good job. I guess we agree that AI is already playing a central role in science, and physics is no exception.
> AI performed the mathematical verification
That should be done by the human writing the manuscript, i.e., you.
Absolutely not. Results don't depend on who performed the calculation or how it was done. Can you solve 12,672 Feynman diagrams by hand?
I have done nothing but associate your "numerical results" with other numberslop I see from LLMs. Again, you're self-reporting.
Can you share the results of your analysis by association? Or was it an instant mental calculation?