MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623772915 · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa927c

Holographic quenches in a confined phase

2017· article· en· W2623772915 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaPerimeter Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchSimons Foundation
KeywordsThermalisationObservableQuantum entanglementPhase (matter)SmoothingHolographyNon-equilibrium thermodynamicsSpectrum (functional analysis)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate quenches of holographic theories in a confined phase, where the energy injected is insufficient to reach the deconfined phase. In such quenches, thermalization is not associated with gravitational collapse and the formation of a black hole. Nevertheless, we attempt to characterize the late-time state of this scenario. We check a number of notions of thermalization that do not require horizon formation, and find no evidence for thermalization in our chosen parameters and initial states, even in the weakest sense. We find that the post-quench behaviour of both local and nonlocal observables exhibit oscillatory behaviour rather than decaying towards equilibrium. We generally find that the response of the nonlocal observables is smoother than that of the local ones. We discuss mechanisms which generate such smoothing, as well as "beats" which appear in the time-dependence of the nonlocal operators for certain classes of quenches. When tuning the quench parameters such that the smoothing is ineffective, we are able to perform "entanglement spectroscopy", recovering the spectrum of the confined phase of the theory from the time dependence of the entanglement entropy, as well as other nonlocal observables.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207