MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Universality of Corner Entanglement in Conformal Field Theories

2015· article· en· W1590232364 on OpenAlexafffund
Pablo Bueno, Robert C. Myers, William Witczak‐Krempa

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsQuantum entanglementPhysicsCentral chargeConformal field theoryConformal mapCurvatureMathematical physicsEntropy (arrow of time)Universality (dynamical systems)ConjectureTheoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryMathematicsQuantumPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the contribution to the entanglement entropy of (2+1)-dimensional conformal field theories (CFTs) coming from a sharp corner in the entangling surface. This contribution is encoded in a function a(θ) of the corner opening angle, and was recently proposed as a measure of the degrees of freedom in the underlying CFT. We show that the ratio a(θ)/C(T), where C(T) is the central charge in the stress tensor correlator, is an almost universal quantity for a broad class of theories including various higher-curvature holographic models, free scalars, and fermions, and Wilson-Fisher fixed points of the O(N) models with N=1,2,3. Strikingly, the agreement between these different theories becomes exact in the limit θ→π, where the entangling surface approaches a smooth curve. We thus conjecture that the corresponding ratio is universal for general CFTs in three dimensions.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations178
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207