MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1987910962 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.029902

Publisher's Note: Four-impurity operators and string field theory vertex in the Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase correspondence [Phys. Rev. D<b>71</b>, 026001 (2005)]

2005· article· en· W1987910962 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Matlock, K. S. Viswanathan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVertex (graph theory)PhysicsMathematical physicsString (physics)Field (mathematics)CombinatoricsMathematicsParticle physicsPure mathematicsGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of the Penrose/BMN limit of the AdS/CFT correspondence, we consider four-impurity BMN operators in Yang-Mills theory, and demonstrate explicitly their correspondence to four-oscillator states in string theory. Using the dilatation operator on the gauge-theory side of the correspondence, we calculate matrix elements between four-impurity states. Since conformal dimensions of gauge-theory operators correspond to light-cone energies of string states, these matrix elements may be compared with the string-theory light-cone Hamiltonian matrix elements calculated in the plane-wave background using the string field theory vertex. We find that the two calculations agree, extending the cases of two- and three-impurity operators considered in the literature using BMN gauge-theory quantum mechanics. The results are also in agreement with calculations in the literature based on perturbative gauge-theory methods.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.012

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology→Same topicPhysics of Superconductivity and Magnetism→French-language works237,207→