MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012261194 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.124021

Bubble divergences and gauge symmetries in spin foams

2013· article· en· W2012261194 on OpenAlexaff
Valentin Bonzom, Bianca Dittrich

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffeomorphismHomogeneous spaceGauge (firearms)Gauge theorySymmetry (geometry)Gauge symmetryMathematical physicsPhysicsSpin (aerodynamics)Vertex (graph theory)Theoretical physicsClassical mechanicsPure mathematicsMathematicsGeometryCombinatoricsGraphThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The divergence structure of spin foam models and its relation to diffeomorphism symmetry has attracted renewed interest. We will discuss in detail the (nonoccurrence of) divergencies in the Barrett-Crane spin foam model, which with our choice of weights can be understood as an integral of delta functions only. We will present furthermore a simple method to estimate the occurrence of so-called bubble divergencies for general spin foam models. We expect divergencies in spin foams related to the existence of (diffeomorphism) gauge symmetries. Thus we have to conclude that such gauge symmetries are not (fully) present in the model we consider. But we will identify a class of gauge symmetries that occur at special solutions of equations imposed by the delta function weights. This situation is surprisingly similar to the case of broken diffeomorphism symmetries in discrete gravity, which are present around flat solutions. We introduce a method to derive (Ward identity-like) equations for the vertex amplitudes of the model in the case of broken gauge symmetries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesFrench-language works237,207