MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606774196 · doi:10.1007/jhep03(2018)189

On finite symmetries and their gauging in two dimensions

2018· article· en· W2606774196 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyUniversity of TokyoGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGlobal symmetrySymmetry (geometry)Homogeneous spaceSymmetry groupGroup (periodic table)Abelian groupSymmetry operationGauge theorySymmetry number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract It is well-known that if we gauge a ℤ n symmetry in two dimensions, a dual ℤ n symmetry appears, such that re-gauging this dual ℤ n symmetry leads back to the original theory. We describe how this can be generalized to non-Abelian groups, by enlarging the concept of symmetries from those defined by groups to those defined by unitary fusion categories. We will see that this generalization is also useful when studying what happens when a non-anomalous subgroup of an anomalous finite group is gauged: for example, the gauged theory can have non-Abelian group symmetry even when the original symmetry is an Abelian group. We then discuss the axiomatization of two-dimensional topological quantum field theories whose symmetry is given by a category. We see explicitly that the gauged version is a topological quantum field theory with a new symmetry given by a dual category.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations299
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207