MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274054394 · doi:10.1142/s0217751x17501500

Rotating restricted Schur polynomials

2017· article· en· W2274054394 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Bornman, Robert de Mello Koch, Laila Tribelhorn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics A · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchur polynomialPhysicsSymmetry (geometry)Action (physics)Dimension (graph theory)Operator (biology)Mathematical physicsPure mathematicsMacdonald polynomialsOrder (exchange)PlanarOrthogonal polynomialsClassical orthogonal polynomialsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large [Formula: see text] but nonplanar limits of [Formula: see text] super-Yang–Mills theory can be described using restricted Schur polynomials. Previous investigations demonstrate that the action of the one loop dilatation operator on restricted Schur operators, with classical dimension of order [Formula: see text] and belonging to the [Formula: see text] sector, is largely determined by the [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] symmetry algebra as well as structural features of perturbative field theory. Studies presented so far have used the form of [Formula: see text] symmetry generators when acting on small perturbations of half-BPS operators. In this paper as a first step towards going beyond small perturbations of the half-BPS operators, we explain how the exact action of symmetry generators on restricted Schur polynomials can be determined.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ASame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207