MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753330878 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.066007

Renormalizable group field theory beyond melonic diagrams: An example in rank four

2017· article· en· W2753330878 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Carrozza, Vincent Lahoche, Daniele Oriti

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenormalization groupGroup field theoryFixed pointPhysicsQuantum field theoryMathematical physicsMathematicsQuantum gravityGroup (periodic table)ScalingTheoretical physicsAsymptotic safety in quantum gravityFunctional renormalization groupCoupling constantContext (archaeology)RenormalizationGauge theoryQuantumQuantum mechanicsThermal quantum field theoryMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove the renormalizability of a gauge-invariant, four-dimensional group field theory (GFT) model on SU(2), whose defining interactions correspond to necklace bubbles (found also in the context of new large-N expansions of tensor models), rather than melonic ones, which are not renormalizable in this case. The respective scaling of different interactions in the vicinity of the Gaussian fixed point is determined by the renormalization group itself. This is possible because the appropriate notion of canonical dimension of the GFT coupling constants takes into account the detailed combinatorial structure of the individual interaction terms. This is one more instance of the peculiarity (and greater mathematical richness) of GFTs with respect to ordinary local quantum field theories. We also explore the renormalization group flow of the model at the nonperturbative level, using functional renormalization group methods, and identify a nontrivial fixed point in various truncations. This model is expected to have a similar structure of divergences as the GFT models of 4D quantum gravity, thus paving the way to more detailed investigations on them.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207