MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1612880317 · doi:10.4310/atmp.2002.v6.n5.a2

Positivity of relativistic spin network evaluations

2002· article· en· W1612880317 on OpenAlexaff
Hendryk Pfeiffer

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpin (aerodynamics)PhysicsTheoretical physicsQuantum electrodynamicsMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let G be a compact Lie group.Using suitable normalization conventions, we show that the evaluation of G x G-symmetric spin networks is non-negative whenever the edges are labeled by representations of the form V ® V* where V is a representation of G, and the inter twiners are generalizations of the Barrett-Crane intertwiner.This includes in particular the relativistic spin networks with symmetry group Spm(4) or 50(4) on a large class of graphs, not restricted to the graph underlying the lOj-symbol.We also present a counterexample, using the finite group 53, to the stronger conjecture that all spin network evaluations are non-negative as long as they can be written using only group integrations and index contractions.This counterexample applies in particular to the product of five Gj-symbols which appears in the spin foam model of the Ss-symmetric .BF-theory on the two-complex dual to a triangulation of the sphere 5 3 using five tetrahedra.We show that this product is negative real for a particular assignment of representations to the edges.

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)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Theoretical and Mathematical PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207