MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900128235 · doi:10.4310/atmp.2019.v23.n8.a7

Homotopy classes of gauge fields and the lattice

2019· article· en· W2900128235 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsLattice gauge theoryEquivalence relationLattice (music)Hamiltonian lattice gauge theoryHomotopyHomomorphismGauge theoryLattice field theoryPrincipal bundlePure mathematicsPhysicsMathematical physicsLine bundle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a smooth manifold $M$, possibly with boundary and corners, and a Lie group $G$, we consider a suitable description of gauge fields in terms of parallel transport, as groupoid homomorphisms from a certain path groupoid in $M$ to $G$. Using a cotriangulation $\mathscr{C}$ of $M$, and collections of finite-dimensional families of paths relative to $\mathscr{C}$, we define a homotopical equivalence relation of parallel transport maps, leading to the concept of an extended lattice gauge (ELG) field. A lattice gauge field, as used in Lattice Gauge Theory, is part of the data contained in an ELG field, but the latter contains further local topological information sufficient to reconstruct a principal $G$-bundle on $M$ up to equivalence. The space of ELG fields of a given pair $(M,\mathscr{C})$ is a covering for the space of fields in Lattice Gauge Theory, whose connected components parametrize equivalence classes of principal $G$-bundles on $M$. We give a criterion to determine when ELG fields over different cotriangulations define equivalent bundles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.234 · 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