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

Holographic mutual information is monogamous

2013· article· en· W2041625524 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Hayden, Matthew Headrick, Alexander Maloney

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.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

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

Citations328
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207