MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275078043 · doi:10.1007/jhep05(2016)048

Four-point function in the IOP matrix model

2016· article· en· W2275078043 on OpenAlexafffund
Ben Michel, Joseph Polchinski, Vladimir Rosenhaus, S. Josephine Suh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimons FoundationKavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa BarbaraNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsQuartic functionFeynman diagramFunction (biology)QuantumMatrix (chemical analysis)Quantum mechanicsPoint (geometry)Theoretical physicsExponential functionMathematical physicsMathematical analysisPure mathematicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The IOP model is a quantum mechanical system of a large-N matrix oscillator and a fundamental oscillator, coupled through a quartic interaction. It was introduced previously as a toy model of the gauge dual of an AdS black hole, and captures a key property that at infinite N the two-point function decays to zero on long time scales. Motivated by recent work on quantum chaos, we sum all planar Feynman diagrams contributing to the four-point function. We find that the IOP model does not satisfy the more refined criteria of exponential growth of the out-of-time-order four-point function.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations56
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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