MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shape from Sound: Toward New Tools for Quantum Gravity

2013· article· en· W1995239336 on OpenAlexaff
David Aasen, Tejal Bhamre, Achim Kempf

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential geometrySpectral geometryEuclidean geometrySignature (topology)Differential (mechanical device)Metric (unit)PhysicsGauge theoryRiemannian geometryTheoretical physicsDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)General relativityGeometryIntersection (aeronautics)Bridging (networking)Computer scienceMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To unify general relativity and quantum theory is hard in part because they are formulated in two very different mathematical languages, differential geometry and functional analysis. A natural candidate for bridging this language gap, at least in the case of the Euclidean signature, is the discipline of spectral geometry. It aims at describing curved manifolds in terms of the spectra of their canonical differential operators. As an immediate benefit, this would offer a clean gauge-independent identification of the metric's degrees of freedom in terms of invariants that should be ready to quantize. However, spectral geometry is itself hard and has been plagued by ambiguities. Here, we regularize and break up spectral geometry into small, finite-dimensional and therefore manageable steps. We constructively demonstrate that this strategy works at least in two dimensions. We can now calculate the shapes of two-dimensional objects from their vibrational spectra.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207