MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165469509 · doi:10.1139/p08-090

Quasi-particles in conformal field theoryThis paper was presented at the Theory CANADA 4 conference, held at the Centre de Recherches Mathématiques at the Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada on 4–7 June 2008.

2009· article· en· W2165469509 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Pierre Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsConformal mapConformal field theoryInterpretation (philosophy)Representation (politics)Class (philosophy)Field (mathematics)Minimal modelsRepresentation theoryPure mathematicsState (computer science)Algebra over a fieldSpace (punctuation)Theoretical physicsVirasoro algebraQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGeometryAlgebra representationAlgorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After recalling some basing features of conformal field theory, we present an elementary introduction to the description of the states in the irreducible modules of the minimal models. The characters, which encode the state content of each module, are easily constructed from the representation theory of the Virasoro algebra and they take the form of infinite alternating sums. On the other hand, the relation between the minimal models and particular statistical models has led to the discovery of alternative expressions for the characters, which are positive definite. These entail a (yet to be fully worked out) quasi-particle description of the space of states, via a filling process with restrictions akin to the exclusion principle. The simplest class of positive characters, pertaining to the ℳ(2,p) models, is presented, and its underlying combinatorial aspects are spelled out. A natural conformal field theoretical interpretation of its quasi-particles is presented.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207