MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The hexagon in the mirror: the three-point function in the SoV representation

2016· article· en· W1675387407 on OpenAlexaff
Shota Komatsu, Ivan Kostov, Didina Serban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsPartition function (quantum field theory)Mirror symmetryVertex (graph theory)Space (punctuation)QuantumRotation (mathematics)Function (biology)Boundary (topology)Vertex modelWorldsheetMathematical physicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsCombinatoricsGeometryQuantum mechanicsGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We derive an integral expression for the leading-order type I–I–I three-point functions in the su ( 2 ) -sector of N = 4 super Yang–Mills theory, for which no determinant formula is known. To this end, we first map the problem to the partition function of the six vertex model with a hexagonal boundary. The advantage of the six-vertex model expression is that it reveals an extra symmetry of the problem, which is the invariance under 90° rotation. On the spin-chain side, this corresponds to the exchange of the quantum space and the auxiliary space and is reminiscent of the mirror transformation employed in the worldsheet S -matrix approaches. After the rotation, we then apply Sklyanin’s separation of variables (SoVs) and obtain a multiple-integral expression of the three-point function. The resulting integrand is expressed in terms of the so-called Baxter polynomials, which is closely related to the quantum spectral curve approach. Along the way, we also derive several new results about the SoV, such as the explicit construction of the basis with twisted boundary conditions and the overlap between the orginal SoV state and the SoV states on the subchains.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207