Log-rise of the resistivity in the holographic Kondo model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a single-channel Kondo effect using a recently developed [1--4] holographic large-$N$ technique. In order to obtain resistivity of this model, we introduce a probe field. The gravity dual of a localized fermionic impurity in $1+1$-dimensional host matter is constructed by embedding a localized two-dimensional Anti-de Sitter (${\mathrm{AdS}}_{2}$)-brane in the bulk of three-dimensional ${\mathrm{AdS}}_{3}$. This helps us construct an impurity charge density which acts as a source to the bulk equation of motion of the probe gauge field. The functional form of the charge density is obtained independently by solving the equations of motion for the fields confined to the ${\mathrm{AdS}}_{2}$-brane. The asymptotic solution of the probe field is dictated by the impurity charge density, which in turn affects the current-current correlation functions and hence the resistivity. Our choice of parameters tunes the near-boundary impurity current to be marginal, resulting in a $\mathrm{log}T$ behavior in the UV resistivity, as is expected for the Kondo problem. The resistivity at the IR fixed point turns out to be zero, signaling a complete screening of the impurity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".