MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735788884 · doi:10.1063/1.4989535

From 3D topological quantum field theories to 4D models with defects

2017· article· en· W2735788884 on OpenAlexaff
Clement Delcamp, Bianca Dittrich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTopological Materials and Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopological quantum field theoryLift (data mining)Unitary stateQuantum field theoryTopology (electrical circuits)CurvatureSurface (topology)MathematicsManifold (fluid mechanics)Field (mathematics)QuantumPure mathematicsTheoretical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceGeometryMathematical physicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(2 + 1) dimensional topological quantum field theories (TQFTs) with defect excitations are by now quite well understood, while many questions are still open for (3 + 1) dimensional TQFTs. Here we propose a strategy to lift states and operators of a (2 + 1) dimensional TQFT to states and operators of a (3 + 1) dimensional theory with defects. The main technical tool is Heegaard splittings, which allow us to encode the topology of a three-dimensional manifold with line defects into a two-dimensional Heegaard surface. We apply this idea to the example of BF theory which describes locally flat connections. This shows in particular how the curvature excitation generating surface operators of the (3 + 1) dimensional theory can be obtained from closed ribbon operators of the (2 + 1) dimensional BF theory. We hope that this technique allows the construction and study of more general models based on unitary fusion categories.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicTopological Materials and PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207