MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041625524 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.046003

Holographic mutual information is monogamous

2013· article· en· W2041625524 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsQuantum entanglementDisjoint setsDual polyhedronHolographyMutual informationQuantumMathematicsTheoretical physicsCombinatoricsStatistical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We identify a special information-theoretic property of quantum field theories with holographic duals: the mutual informations among arbitrary disjoint spatial regions $A$, $B$, $C$ obey the inequality $I(A\ensuremath{\mathbin:}B\ensuremath{\cup}C)\ensuremath{\ge}I(A\ensuremath{\mathbin:}B)+I(A\ensuremath{\mathbin:}C)$, provided entanglement entropies are given by the Ryu-Takayanagi formula. Inequalities of this type are known as monogamy relations and are characteristic of measures of quantum entanglement. This suggests that correlations in holographic theories arise primarily from entanglement rather than classical correlations. We also show that the Ryu-Takayanagi formula is consistent with all known general inequalities obeyed by the entanglement entropy, including an infinite set recently discovered by Cadney et al.; this constitutes strong evidence in favor of its validity.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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