MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2887246452 · doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)071

Traversable wormholes as quantum channels: exploring CFT entanglement structure and channel capacity in holography

2018· article· en· W2887246452 on OpenAlexafffund
Ning Bao, Aidan Chatwin-Davies, Jason Pollack, Grant N. Remmen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKU LeuvenFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekGordon and Betty Moore FoundationAdolph C. and Mary Sprague Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science, University of California BerkeleyCalifornia Institute of TechnologySimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuantum entanglementWormholePhysicsAmplitude damping channelQuantum channelContext (archaeology)Theoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsQuantumQuantum informationQuantum discordGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bstract We interpret the traversable wormhole in AdS/CFT in the context of quantum information theory. In particular, we investigate its properties as both a quantum channel and entanglement witness. We define protocols that allow either the bounding of the channel’s entanglement capacity or the determination of aspects of the entanglement structure between the two boundary CFTs. Such protocols and connections allow for the use of quantum channel techniques in the study of gravitational physics and vice versa. More generally, our results suggest a purely quantum information-theoretic criterion for recognizing when the product of two boundary theories has a classical bulk interpretation.

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)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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