Quantum group spin nets: Refinement limit and relation to spin foams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
So far spin foam models are hardly understood beyond a few of their basic building blocks. To make progress on this question, we define analogue spin foam models, so-called ``spin nets,'' for quantum groups $\mathrm{SU}(2{)}_{k}$ and examine their effective continuum dynamics via tensor network renormalization. In the refinement limit of this coarse-graining procedure, we find a vast nontrivial fixed-point structure beyond the degenerate and the $BF$ phase. In comparison to previous work, we use fixed-point intertwiners, inspired by Reisenberger's construction principle [M. P. Reisenberger, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 40, 2046 (1999)] and the recent work [B. Dittrich and W. Kaminski, arXiv:1311.1798], as the initial parametrization. In this new parametrization fine-tuning is not required in order to flow to these new fixed points. Encouragingly, each fixed point has an associated extended phase, which allows for the study of phase transitions in the future. Finally we also present an interpretation of spin nets in terms of melonic spin foams. The coarse-graining flow of spin nets can thus be interpreted as describing the effective coupling between two spin foam vertices or space time atoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".