MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Universal scaling of the logarithmic negativity in massive quantum field theory

2016· article· en· W1877400864 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsQuantum entanglementLogarithmUnitary stateNegativity effectMeasure (data warehouse)ScalingQuantumBipartite graphQuantum discord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the logarithmic negativity, a measure of bipartite entanglement, in a general unitary 1 + 1-dimensional massive quantum field theory, not necessarily integrable. We compute the negativity between a finite region of length r and an adjacent semi-infinite region, and that between two semi-infinite regions separated by a distance r . We show that the former saturates to a finite value, and that the latter tends to zero, as r → ∞ . We show that in both cases, the leading corrections are exponential decays in r (described by modified Bessel functions) that are solely controlled by the mass spectrum of the model, independently of its scattering matrix. This implies that, like the entanglement entropy (EE), the logarithmic negativity displays a very high level of universality, allowing one to extract information about the mass spectrum. Further, a study of sub-leading terms shows that, unlike the EE, a large- r analysis of the negativity allows for the detection of bound states.

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)0.006
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations54
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207