MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131072658 · doi:10.1007/jhep11(2015)055

Mirror symmetry and loop operators

2015· article· en· W2131072658 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Assel, Jaume Gomis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraIndustry CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsTheoretical physicsSupersymmetric gauge theoryWilson loopGauge theoryDuality (order theory)Mirror symmetryFundamental representationGauge symmetryLoop (graph theory)String (physics)Symmetry (geometry)Mathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsPure mathematicsLie algebraGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wilson loops in gauge theories pose a fundamental challenge for dualities. Wilson loops are labeled by a representation of the gauge group and should map under duality to loop operators labeled by the same data, yet generically, dual theories have completely different gauge groups. In this paper we resolve this conundrum for three dimensional mirror symmetry. We show that Wilson loops are exchanged under mirror symmetry with Vortex loop operators, whose microscopic definition in terms of a supersymmetric quantum mechanics coupled to the theory encode in a non-trivial way a representation of the original gauge group, despite that the gauge groups of mirror theories can be radically different. Our predictions for the mirror map, which we derive guided by branes in string theory, are confirmed by the computation of the exact expectation value of Wilson and Vortex loop operators on the three-sphere.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations106
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207