Entangling detectors in anti-de Sitter space
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract We examine in (2+1)-dimensional anti-de Sitter (AdS) space the phenomena of entanglement harvesting — the process in which a pair of detectors (two-level atoms) extract entanglement from a quantum field through local interactions with the field. We begin by reviewing the Unruh-DeWitt detector and its interaction with a real scalar field in the vacuum state, as well as the entanglement harvesting protocol in general. We then examine how the entanglement harvested by a pair of such detectors depends on their spacetime trajectory, separation, spacetime curvature, and boundary conditions satisfied by the field. The harvested entanglement is interpreted as an indicator of field entanglement between the localized regions where the detectors interact with the field, and thus this investigation allows us to probe indirectly the entanglement structure of the AdS vacuum. We find an island of separability for specific values of the detectors’ energy gap and separation at intermediate values of the AdS length for which entanglement harvesting is not possible; an analogous phenomena is observed in AdS 4 , to which we compare and contrast our results. In the process we examine how the transition probability of a single detector, as a proxy for local fluctuations of the field, depends on spacetime curvature, its location in AdS space, and boundary conditions satisfied by the field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it