MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058285049 · doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)122

Revisiting entanglement entropy of lattice gauge theories

2015· article· en· W2058285049 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoIndustry CanadaCroucher FoundationGovernment of CanadaJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsQuantum entanglementHilbert spaceTopological entropy in physicsGauge theoryLattice gauge theoryHamiltonian lattice gauge theoryJoint quantum entropySupersymmetric gauge theoryEntropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is realized recently that the entanglement entropy in gauge theories is ambiguous because the Hilbert space cannot be expressed as a simple direct product of Hilbert spaces defined on the two regions; different ways of dividing the Hilbert spaces near the boundary leads to significantly different result, to the extreme that it could annihilate the otherwise finite topological entanglement entropy between two regions altogether. In this article, we first show that the topological entanglement entropy in the Kitaev model [1] which is not a true gauge theory, is free of ambiguity. Then, we give a physical interpretation, from the perspectives of what can be measured in an experiment, to the purported ambiguity of true gauge theories, where the topological entanglement arises as redundancy in counting the degrees of freedom along the boundary separating two regions. We generalize these discussions to non-Abelian gauge theories.

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)0.000
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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