MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054827297 · doi:10.1088/0305-4470/34/40/310

The identification of Young tableaux with angular momentum states

2001· article· en· W2054827297 on OpenAlexaff
Luke McAven, M. Schlesinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and General · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYoung tableauBasis (linear algebra)Unitary stateAngular momentumProjection (relational algebra)Interpretation (philosophy)Group (periodic table)Spin (aerodynamics)PhysicsMathematicsTotal angular momentum quantum numberSimple (philosophy)CombinatoricsQuantum mechanicsGeometryComputer scienceAlgorithmPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young tableaux are used to label the basis vectors of the standard or Young-Yamanouchi basis of the symmetric group. Despite being used for this purpose for some time, a physical interpretation of what they mean has not been given. Weyl tableaux however, which label the basis vectors of the standard or Gelfand basis of the unitary group, do have a physical interpretation. Weyl tableaux correspond to antisymmetrized states with definite total spin, definite spin projection and definite total angular momentum projection. We discuss how a previously well established link between Young and Weyl tableaux may imply Young tableaux are similarly associated with such states. If such an association could be made, calculations using symmetric group bases could be reduced to simple angular momentum manipulations. In particular this would greatly increase the efficiency of calculating the coefficients of fractional parentage of Sn, which can in turn be used to calculate unitary recoupling coefficients. We present a methodology for determining whether such an association exists.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207