MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2792508809 · doi:10.1007/jhep06(2018)140

Tensor and matrix models: a one-night stand or a lifetime romance?

2018· article· en· W2792508809 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pablo Díaz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsKronecker deltaTensor (intrinsic definition)PhysicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsMatrix (chemical analysis)Duality (order theory)Rank (graph theory)ConjectureMathematical physicsCombinatoricsPure mathematicsMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The spectra of energy eigenstates of free tensor and matrix models are organized by Kronecker coefficients and Littlewood-Richardson numbers, respectively. Exploiting recent results in combinatorics for Kronecker coefficients, we derive a formula that relates Kronecker coefficients with a hook shape with Littlewood-Richardson numbers. This formula has a natural translation into physics: the eigenstates of the hook sector of tensor models are in one-to-one correspondence with fluctuations of 1/2-BPS states in multi-matrix models. We then conjecture the duality between both sectors. Finally, we study the Hagedorn behaviour of tensor models with finite rank of the symmetry group and, using similar arguments, suggest that the second (high energy) phase could be entirely described by multi-matrix models.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.015
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy Physics→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→