发表机构
“Enrico Fermi” Research Center (CREF); Instituto Carlos I de Física Teórica y Computacional, Universidad de Granada; Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Physics and Complex Systems (IFISC), CSIC-UIB（恩里科·费米研究中心; 格拉纳达大学卡洛斯一世理论与计算物理研究所; 跨学科物理与复杂系统研究所）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文通过普适性检验质疑高阶物理的独特性，指出元数非普适性标签，并探讨高阶结构的本质及其在揭示组织、改进预测中的价值。
AI 中文摘要
群体交互普遍存在，熟悉模型的高阶扩展展现出其成对基线中不存在的集体现象，这些现象常被作为高阶物理独特性的证据。我们质疑这一主张能否通过统计物理学中赋予其精确意义的检验：普适性检验。通过重新审视典型的高阶模型，我们认为对集体行为进行分类的是在长尺度上存留的红外要素。元数并非普适性标签。超越普适性，我们进一步探讨两个问题：高阶结构是系统的客观事实还是描述的选择，以及数据能告诉我们关于交互阶数的什么信息。当高阶描述揭示组织结构、提供更好的机制语言或改进预测时，它们仍然不可或缺。最后，我们提出在宣称新现象之前应测量什么，以及高阶结构在何处已占据其应有的地位。
英文摘要
Group interactions are widespread, and higher-order extensions of familiar models display collective phenomena absent from their pairwise baselines, which are routinely offered as evidence of a distinct higher-order physics. We ask whether that claim survives the test that gives new a precise meaning in statistical physics: that of universality. Revisiting canonical higher-order models, we argue that what classifies collective behavior are the infrared ingredients that survive at long scales. Arity is not a universality label. Beyond universality, we examine two further questions: whether higher-order structure is a fact about the system or a choice of description, and what data can and cannot tell us about interaction order. Higher-order descriptions remain indispensable when they expose the organizing structure, provide a better mechanistic language, or improve prediction. We close with what should be measured before new phenomena can be claimed, and where higher-order structure already earns its place.
Comments11 pages, 4 figures and 100 references
