MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095490169 · doi:10.1063/1.2146190

On Chern-Simons theory with an inhomogeneous gauge group and BF theory knot invariants

2005· article· en· W2095490169 on OpenAlexaff
Gad Naot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChern–Simons theoryKnot (papermaking)Mathematical physicsKnot theoryGauge groupGauge theoryKnot polynomialMathematicsGroup (periodic table)Knot invariantAlgebra over a fieldTheoretical physicsPure mathematicsPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the Chern-Simons topological quantum field theory with an inhomogeneous gauge group, a non-semi-simple group obtained from a semisimple one by taking its semidirect product with its Lie algebra. We find that the standard knot observable (i.e., trace of the holonomy along the knot) essentially vanishes, and yet, the non-semi-simplicity of the gauge group allows us to consider a class of unorthodox observables which breaks gauge invariance at one point and leads to a nontrivial theory on long knots in R3. We have two main morals. (1) In the non-semi-simple case there is more to observe in Chern-Simons theory. There might be other interesting non-semi-simple gauge groups to study in this context beyond our example. (2) In the case of an inhomogeneous gauge group, we find that Chern-Simons theory with the unorthodox observable is actually the same as three-dimensional BF theory with the Cattaneo-Cotta-Ramusino-Martellini knot observable. This leads to a simplification of their results and enables us to generalize and solve a problem they posed regarding the relation between BF theory and the Alexander-Conway polynomial. We prove that the most general knot invariant coming from pure BF topological quantum field theory is in the algebra generated by the coefficients of the Alexander-Conway polynomial.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207